Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

REVIEW OF THE REVISIONS TO THE AVERAGE EARNINGS INDEX

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report on the revision of the average earnings index, conducted by Sir Andrew Turnbull and Mr. Mervyn King.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Public Bodies (Equal Opportunities)

Ms Karen Buck: What progress is being made towards increasing the representation of women and people from ethnic minorities on bodies sponsored by his Department. [72088]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Over the 12 months to February, the number of women and people from ethnic minorities appointed to my Department's public bodies has risen in percentage terms from 27 to 30 per cent. and 2.1 to 3.2 per cent. respectively. From September 1998 to date, we have done even better. Fifty-five appointments have been made, of which 23–42 per cent.—were women and four–8 per cent.—were from ethnic minorities.

Ms Buck: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements so far, although there is still some way to go. Does he agree that strong civic leadership is one of the most effective ways in which we can tackle social exclusion? Representation on appointed bodies is one of the most important ways in which we can recognise that civic leadership, so may I urge him to make further progress, particularly on the representation of members of the black and minority ethnic communities? Will he ensure that representatives are drawn from a wide and diverse range of communities, rather than including only people who have already achieved some celebrity and status in their chosen fields?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point with which I agree entirely. In the light, in particular, of recent events, it is extremely important to ensure that people

from ethnic minority communities can take positions of leadership in a variety of bodies sponsored by the Government. That can add to the harmony of good race relations in the United Kingdom, for which all of us wish to strive.

National Lottery

Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the regional distribution of projects funded by the national lottery since its initiation. [72089]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Some regions have benefited more than others from the lottery. We are determined to see lottery funds allocated fairly and equitably in the light of need across all regions of the UK. Measures in the National Lottery Act 1998 and recent changes in policy directions to the distributors will help to achieve that.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister. Reigate holds the unenviable position of being 656th in the list of constituencies receiving lottery money. Some constituency must hold that position, of course, but the south-east has received only 60 per cent. of what might be termed fair distribution. Can the Minister assure me that when I write to support lottery applications, it is in order for me to make a point of the standing of Reigate and the south-east in the hope that committees will take them into account in making distribution fairer across the country?

Mr. Banks: I well understand the problems that Reigate has to cope with. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have read the figures, and funding in Reigate is £62 per head while the UK average is £103. Reigate seems to have done particularly badly, receiving only 15 awards so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members say that it is disgraceful, but other constituencies may argue that their cases for funds are more persuasive than Reigate's. However, getting behind lottery bids from their constituencies is an important function of Members of Parliament. Although I cannot guarantee that their support will necessarily mean success, giving support is better than doing nothing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that for many years my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), myself and others who represent constituencies in the east midlands region and the county of Derbyshire, often drew attention to the fact that North-East Derbyshire was bottom of the list, Bolsover not much higher and Chesterfield in the same group. It looked as though the Tory Government were deliberately picking on three members of the socialist Campaign group. Is it not a bit rich of that Tory, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), to be moaning and wittering? The Tory Government handed out £13 million for the Winston Churchill papers, and more for opera companies and all the rest of it. If the boot has been put on the other foot, that is no bad thing.

Mr. Banks: If the boot is on the other foot, my hon. Friend certainly knows how to put it in. I can assure him that I, least of all hon. Members, would wish to discriminate against his constituency and against good socialists in Derbyshire—[Interruption.] I am going to


Derbyshire soon and very much look forward to it. The coalfields task force report has drawn attention to the lack of resources going into the coalfield sites, and we are determined to do something about that.

New Opportunities Fund

Dr. Ian Gibson: When the new opportunities fund will be able to accept applications in respect of out-of-school-hours activities. [72090]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new opportunities fund was formally launched on 29 January. Applications for the out-of-school-hours child care programme will be invited in early March and the out-of-school-hours learning activities programme will open for applications in early April.

Dr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps he is taking along with colleagues to engender enthusiasm among the teaching profession for out-of-school initiatives? Will he also encourage the teaching of politics, particularly of the left-wing sort, in the after-school clubs, to prevent for ever in Norwich such phrases as "There's no racism here"?

Mr. Smith: There is already enormous enthusiasm in schools throughout the country for the out-of-school initiatives, and many local communities and schools are champing at the bit to get in their applications. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am afraid that I cannot give him comfort on the teaching of any one political view in the after-school clubs. However, I very much hope that the clubs will include a wide variety of learning activities as well as sport and drama, all of which help greatly to fulfil the development of individual children.

Mr. Richard Spring: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the amount of the "raid"—his word—to bolster the new opportunities fund at the expense of existing good causes, including sport and the caring charities, will be fully £3.7 billion by 2005? Does he understand that that raid simply replaces core Government spending responsibilities?

Mr. Smith: No, and no. I do not recognise the £43 billion figure that the hon. Gentleman cites. He will know that it is firmly expected that each of the existing good causes for the arts, sport, charities and heritage will receive £1.85 billion during the present franchise of the lottery. That is what they were promised at the outset—in fact it is better—and that is what they will receive.

Mr. Alan Keen: I recall my right hon. Friend in 1998 praising the value of children's play, saying that he would get support not only from his Department but from other Departments. What progress has been made to date?

Mr. Smith: We have already ensured that a number of lottery distributors, including the Sports Council, the heritage fund and the National Lottery Charities Board will be able to fund children's play initiatives—indeed, those bodies are already doing so. We have issued a

leaflet to organisations involved in children's play to explain how they can gain access to those funds and, as part of the next round of new opportunities fund initiatives, we have proposed a green spaces and sustainable communities initiative, which will specifically include funds earmarked for children's play.

Mr. David Heath: Can the Secretary of State ensure that such provision is available for people who live in rural as well as those in urban areas? The difficulties of children in rural areas are, first, that there are fewer people with whom to participate; secondly, unit costs are higher; and, thirdly and most importantly, it is difficult to get to and from the school and home. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his programme tackles those issues?

Mr. Smith: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. Like the other lottery distributors, the new opportunities fund has a duty, under the new directions that I have issued, to pay particular attention to the needs of areas of social deprivation, which specifically include such areas in rural as well as urban settings.

Hospitality and Tourism Industries

Ms Ann Coffey: What his plans are for improving the competitiveness and quality of service of the UK hospitality and tourism industries. [72091]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): "Tomorrow's Tourism", the new strategy which we published on 26 February, contains a number of recommendations for action by central and local government, the tourism industry and other key players to improve the competitiveness and quality of the industry, and thus make it a world leader. A copy of the strategy has been sent to every hon. Member.

Ms Coffey: I very much welcome the new tourism strategy and, in particular, the proposal to sign up 500 new employers to work towards Investors in People, which will improve the quality of training in the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that towns such as Stockport, with its many attractions, such as the largest railway viaduct in Europe, are sometimes overlooked in the contribution that they make to the United Kingdom tourist industry?

Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that our strategy document "Tomorrow's Tourism" welcomes the contribution of industrial heritage around the country, particularly in her constituency. I thank her for her welcome for the new drive to sign up 500 employers towards the Investors in People standard to help raise the quality of training in the industry.

Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister tell business men and women in my constituency who work in the tourist industry why they feel that they have become worse off in the past 12 months as a direct result of increased tax and red tape under this Government?

Janet Anderson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very warm welcome given the strategy by Michael Jolly,


chief executive of Two Swords, a successful attraction company. He said:
I greatly welcome this new strategy which addresses the needs of tourism businesses of all types and places them exactly where they belong—in the mainstream of British industry.
It appears that Mr. Jolly does not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend reconsider how signage is coloured on our motorways? It is coloured a dirty brown which does not help give a valuable sharp new image of Britain.

Janet Anderson: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It might be expensive to change the colour, but we will note his comment.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What does the Minister have to say to the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, which says of the Government's playfully coloured strategy document that Ministers have lost the plot? I do not think that it was referring to the Home Secretary, who is clearly doing his bit for French tourism. Is not the document's main effect to marginalise England within the United Kingdom? Who asked for that? What is the point of a tourism strategy document that fails to address any of the key issues raised by the industry—red tape, bureaucracy, the working time directive, the part-time workers directive, the parental leave directive and the national minimum wage?

Janet Anderson: As ever, it is the hon. Gentleman who has lost the plot. It is rich for him to accuse us of marginalising England when it was the Conservative party which reduced funding for English tourism from £25 million to less than £10 million. The strategy has been widely welcomed. It is the first time that the Government have produced a comprehensive strategy of this sort. It was welcomed warmly by the industry in consultation with which, for the first time, it was drawn up.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Cannot the growth of tourism in some ways be problematic for the natural environment? I am thinking of the growth of traffic and transport. What is the Department doing to make tourism and its development compatible with the principles of sustainability? Is the Green Minister in the Department doing any specific work on this?

Janet Anderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the action points in our 15-point action plan referred specifically to that. It produced a blueprint for the sustainable development of tourism to safeguard our countryside, heritage and culture for future generations. I draw his attention to the support for the strategy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who recognised why the transport system is so important and pointed out that some of the things that we are trying to do will make a major contribution to encouraging tourism.

Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from accommodation, what British tourism needs more than anything else is better training for staff? Will she therefore congratulate Searles of Hunstanton on being leaders in introducing a national vocational qualification in running caravan parks?
Will she do all that she can to encourage all those involved in tourism to ensure that staff are trained far more thoroughly than in the past?

Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the importance of that. One of the strategy's main points is to help tourism change from being an industry that has perhaps been perceived as providing low-wage, temporary employment with no career structure or proper training. That is why one of the 15 action points is a new drive to sign up 500 employers to work towards the Investors in People standard. I congratulate the company that my hon. Friend mentioned on its contribution.

Professional Sporting Bodies

Mr. Simon Hughes: What steps he proposes to take to ensure the autonomy of the professional sporting bodies; and if he will make a statement. [72093]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Professional sporting bodies in this country are independent and autonomous, and the Government fully support that principle.

Mr. Hughes: I am reassured by that answer and wonder whether, on reflection, the Minister accepts that the comments that he and the Prime Minister made a few weeks ago, which effectively amounted to kicking an English manager when he was down, were entirely inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman is a respected Minister for Sport, and I put it to him seriously that that was a bad mistake. Will he guarantee that in future no Minister will try to decide who will be the captain of England's football team, or of any other team representing any of the countries of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman comes rather late to the event, and it did not happen as he describes. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were asked to comment on a matter that was, after all, being discussed up and down the country. It would have been odd if neither my right hon. Friend nor I had had an opinion; if we had had no opinion, we would have been condemned for being out of touch. I might add that dealing with such situations is difficult: it is rather like trying to walk on eggshells while wearing swimming flippers—a difficult task in which one does not always succeed. The incident was an unfortunate one; it was for the Football Association to take the final decision and we support that decision. We wish Kevin Keegan great success for the future and hope that the search for a more permanent England manager is successful.

Mr. John Maxton: Although I agree that professional sporting bodies should be autonomous, as often as not they are part of the broader governance of that sport. Does my hon. Friend agree that such bodies cannot be totally autonomous, given that they receive large sums of public money through the lottery,


sports councils and local government education authorities? Therefore, in respect of broadcasting, should not the Government ensure the widest possible viewing of those sports by the widest possible audience, rather than leave it to those governing bodies alone to decide who will broadcast their sport?

Mr. Banks: I agree strongly with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The Government do not want to dominate or instruct sports bodies—that is not our job; however, there is a role for Government in partnership with the governing bodies of sport. My hon. Friend is correct to say that such bodies receive millions of pounds of Exchequer grants channelled through the sports councils, so they have a responsibility to develop their own sport, to ensure that it flourishes, and to make sure that they are accountable and operate efficiently. That is why my Department set up Quest—quality excellence standards team—which will assist sports bodies to become more efficient and accountable. The trouble is that one of the greatest things that we have given the world is most of the modern sports. We did that during the 19th century and quite a few of our governing bodies still have structures that are rooted in the 19th century, which is not appropriate as we enter the 21st century.
As for the televising of events, there is a balance to be struck. Governing bodies want to generate more income for their sport, which they can achieve through televising, but, in certain cases, that might be seen as restricting television access. However, most people would argue that there is now more sport on television than has ever been seen before, and I look forward to seeing even more.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome the Minister's announcement that he supports the autonomy of sports bodies, but does he recognise that, in certain cases, the partnership he mentioned requires greater intervention, especially in relation to rugby union? Recently, great concern has been aroused by, for example, one club trying to take over another in a completely different area, which might damage fans' interests. I know that the Minister paints himself as the fans' friend, so will he carefully consider such problems? Concerns have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by our constituents about what has recently been going wrong in rugby union.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, which gives me the opportunity to congratulate the England women's rugby team on beating Scotland on Sunday. I was at the game and saw some very enjoyable rugby. I encourage people to go to see women's rugby.
We can give advice and assistance directly to governing bodies in certain areas—and we certainly did that with regard to the RFU and the five nations competition. There are several other areas of concern regarding the takeover of clubs. The Government clearly have a role to play in representing the public interest, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we must balance interference with taking no interest in the issues. We are trying to strike that balance and, with the hon. Gentleman's help, we will succeed.

After-school Clubs

Mr. Syd Rapson: What plans he has to offer sporting activities at after-school clubs. [72094]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I hope that activities offered may include sporting and outdoor learning activities, and structured, learning-oriented play. The amount allocated for these activities will be determined by the new opportunities fund in response to the applications received.
Emerging evidence suggests involvement in sporting activities increases pupils' confidence, self-esteem and sense of achievement. Types of activities currently supported in after-school clubs are netball, swimming, football, adventure activities, gymnastics and aerobics. Current after-schools clubs also involve children in creative activities such as musical instrument tuition, bands, singing classes, painting, pottery, musical dance and dramatic productions—as well as providing opportunities for attending performances and workshops.

Mr. Rapson: It is generally agreed that sporting activities are unifying and very healthy for young people's development. Will the Minister use his special qualities to encourage sporting bids from the new opportunities fund and to encourage local authorities to act in partnership so that the maximum number of clubs may benefit and sport may be put in its rightful context?

Mr. Banks: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He was sufficiently modest not to mention the City of Portsmouth hockey club, which is supporting schools running after-school hockey sessions. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) laughs: he does not have the shape for hockey, but I am sure that he supports the sport—he is a little puckish, if I may say so.
Portsmouth is clearly setting a very good example. Schools' after-hours activities can comprise a big sporting element—I keep returning to this point—and that is a good way of allocating additional resources to sport. I hope that local authorities, clubs and other bodies will submit applications so that we may have many sport-oriented activities in after-school clubs.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Schools and colleges have some excellent facilities that are chained and locked up after hours, particularly in the summer. Would it be possible to use some of the money to open those facilities and provide coaching? It is rather absurd that, while Burger King and McDonald's restaurants are open all hours to attract our youngsters, we chain up those sporting facilities that could make our youngsters healthier.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is right: this problem has been around for ages. Every time we raise the issue, we are told about difficulties with insurance and so on. School facilities that benefit from lottery funds must encourage community involvement. The principle is clearly already established, but we must do more. I am more than happy to do what I can, in discussion with my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment, to unlock more educational sporting facilities. It is a great waste if they are under-utilised.

Ms Claire Ward: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that football and rugby clubs can play an


important role in after-school clubs. What is he doing to ensure that such activities are promoted among football and rugby clubs? Will he make sure that clubs already undertaking those activities are recognised as leading the way?

Mr. Banks: May I say to my hon. Friend how much I enjoyed my visit to Watford last week when I attended the Saracens and Watford luncheon club? It was a very pleasant visit and I thoroughly enjoyed renewing my old acquaintance with Watford, whose electorate cruelly rejected me in 1979. My hon. Friend was seven at the time—too young to vote and too old to kiss.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to encourage far more link-ups between schools and clubs. I shall do whatever I can. The issue demonstrates why there is so much need for regular contact between my Department and the Department for Education and Employment.

Arts Council

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the Arts Council. [72095]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): My Department is currently preparing a funding agreement with the Arts Council of England which will set out its funding for the next three years and ensure that the council pursues the Government's overall objectives of excellence, access and education in the arts.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the chairman of the Arts Council has a greater opportunity than ever before with the massive amounts of lottery money that are available for spending on the arts. Did he note the comments made today by a former chairman of the Arts Council, who complained that the Government had substituted truth and logic with spin and image? The spin is that there has been an increase in funding for the Arts Council; the truth is that the increase is less than one tenth of the amount that the Government have raided from the arts to support their other pet projects.
I would be grateful if, in his reply, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the decisions made in May 1997, not the originally anticipated lottery money of 1994. All agree that the lottery has been more successful than anyone anticipated, and the arts have lost over £350 million as a result of the Government's decisions.

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong. She may not have noticed that something else happened in May 1997—there was a general election, during which we said clearly to the electorate that we proposed to establish the new opportunities fund to provide a stream of lottery money for health, education and environment projects, and we subsequently did so.
I have to assume that the right hon. Lady welcomes that decision because she wrote to me last February about a project in her constituency. She said:
The changes in direction"—

the direction of lottery funding—
should provide an excellent opportunity for them. I wonder if you could brief me on the likely timetable in which applications will be received for the New Opportunities Fund.
She was clearly in favour of the fund being established.
On funding for the arts, the right hon. Lady may also have failed to notice that she was responsible, in 1995, for a £5 million cut in money for the Arts Council and, in 1996, for a standstill in cash funding for the Arts Council. She may not have noticed that we are responsible for a £43 million increase for the Arts Council next year, a £10 million increase in the year after that and a £15 million increase in the following year.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the role of the Arts Council primarily as a distributor of public funds, and the difficulty that it may create in the way in which the Arts Council acts as an advocacy body, does the Secretary of State welcome the establishment of an alternative arts council, with which Sir Peter Hall and other critics of Government policy have become associated?

Mr. Smith: Sir Peter Hall stood on the stage at the Olivier awards at the Royal National theatre and grandly announced the establishment of the so-called shadow arts council. He named a number of people, including Sir Tom Stoppard, Sir Jeremy Isaacs and Sir Richard Eyre, as being members of that council, but they have all subsequently said that they have never heard of it.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State seems unconcerned by the rising concern in the arts about political interference and funding, and he was wrong in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Instead of relying on Lord Bragg to be on-message—Melvyn takes his party whip a little too seriously these days—and being rude about Sir Peter Hall, why does not the right hon. Gentleman listen to people in the arts world and their concerns about dumbing down and political interference in the arts?

Mr. Smith: I have to say that there is no dumbing down and no political interference. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it is wrong for the Government to set a broad framework of objectives—eminently sensible objectives for access for the many, not the few; for nurturing excellence in the arts; and for ensuring that arts can make their proper contribution to education? Those are absolutely valid objectives for the Government to be concerned about and to be setting in place as a framework for the arts. That is not political interference, but sensible government.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Millennium Dome (Sponsorship)

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on progress in obtaining sponsorship for the millennium dome. [72118]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company continues to make impressive progress towards achieving its target of £150 million-worth of sponsorship. As already announced, £120 million-worth of sponsorship is confirmed and I understand that the company hopes to make further announcements shortly.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the Government's professed new spirit of openness, will she publish, zone by zone, the sponsorship so far received for the dome? If her answer is no, does she not understand that the suspicion will fester that some zones are distinctly underfunded?

Janet Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient—I hope he will remain for the rest of this Question Time—I think that his questions will be answered.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Is it not about time that, rather than whingeing on about the dome, Conservative Members congratulated the Government on the £120 million gathered in so far; worked with them, rather than otherwise, to secure the best possible millennium celebrations at Greenwich; and stopped wittering on like silly little schoolchildren?

Janet Anderson: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. In just such a spirit of co-operation, we invited Opposition Front Benchers to join us in celebrating this national event of international significance and I hope that they will do so.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister knows that we support the project. Is she concerned about the effect on the sponsors of the unseemly dispute with Church leaders over the opening ceremony? Given that the millennium marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ, is one and a half minutes of quiet meditation too much to ask in the context of 2,000 years in times past—or, indeed, eternity to come?

Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to support the project, but then attempts to find divisions where there are none. I wish that he would get behind the project wholeheartedly.
The Churches have let it be known that they want religion to play a broader part in the opening event at the dome. There is no division between us on that and discussions are continuing between the Churches, the Department and the New Millennium Experience Company. When the programme for the opening night's celebration at the dome is fully developed, plans will be presented to the Government and others. I say to the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of openness which he has requested and with which we have complied, that we will give him full details as soon as we are able to do so.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many zones within the millennium dome are now sponsored; and for which zones the sponsorship agreements have been signed. [72119]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): First, may I apologise to the House for the length of the answer that I am about to give? In the spirit of openness which we have promised to pursue, I want to give the House as much information as possible.
The New Millennium Experience Company has previously announced that the zones that are sponsored are: the body, sponsored by Boots, with Roche and L'Oréal; communicate, sponsored by BT; global, sponsored by British Airways and the British Airports Authority; learn, sponsored by Tesco; work, sponsored by Manpower; mind, sponsored by GEC and British Aerospace; national identity, sponsored by Marks and Spencer; and transaction, sponsored by the Corporation of London. In addition, baby dome is being sponsored by BSkyB and our town story is being sponsored by McDonald's.
Sponsorships have been agreed at board level and the necessary contractual negotiations, which are extremely detailed and often complex, continue. For the remaining zones—mobility, spirit, living island, local, rest and play—the New Millennium Experience Company is in discussions with a number of potential sponsors. Those discussions are at various stages, some of which will be concluded imminently.
I hope that that also answers the earlier question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Lady for that answer. Does she accept, however, that that welcome transparency has come rather late in the day and that public enthusiasm for the project has been undermined by the fact that, until now, it has been characterised by leak, rumour and stupidity?

Janet Anderson: On the contrary. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but our impression is that public enthusiasm for the project has grown. He will know, as we do, that the millennium dome at Greenwich is fast becoming an international symbol of the millennium. Moreover, there is no point in our trying to give information when it is not available. As soon as it is available, we shall bring it to the House and keep hon. Members in touch with what is happening. I hope that, in return, Opposition Members will just for once stop carping and get behind this national project.

Mr. John Maxton: As the content of the spirit zone is supposed to be designed by the so-called Lambeth group, which, incidentally, does not include the British Humanist Association, can my hon. Friend tell us exactly how much sponsorship money has been contributed to that zone by any religious organisation in this country?

Janet Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants at the moment, but I can tell him that the New Millennium Experience Company is in discussions with a number of potential supporters and is confident that it will secure the support needed to deliver an inspirational and contemplative spirit zone.

Oral Answers to Questions — Millennium Site (Future)

Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium site after 2000. [72120]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government are concerned to ensure that the nation enjoys a long-term and enduring legacy from the millennium celebrations as a whole, and that includes the dome. That was one of the conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in June 1997 when the Government gave the go-ahead for the millennium experience at Greenwich. In June 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister established a working group to make recommendations about the process of achieving a sustainable long-term use for the dome. We plan to make announcements very shortly about the outcome of that work.

Mr. Hughes: It was 15 months ago today that the previous Secretary fo State for Trade and Industry invited proposals for the future of the dome site after 2001, and we have heard regularly since last December that announcements were to be made shortly. What is holding up the Government in putting out proposals for people to consult on? Does the Secretary of State accept that the best way to proceed would be to secure maximum participation in the decision about what happens to the site afterwards? Does he agree that, the sooner we can get on with that, the more relieved many people will be?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's desire for maximum participation will very soon be fulfilled because, within the next few days, we shall make announcements about an invitation for companies, organisations and individuals around the country to come forward with expressions of interest in the future use of the dome after the millennium year.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are enormous opportunities for the use of that great public space? I hope that he will consult carefully with youth organisations and local people in the Greenwich area, because the dome could not only attract young people from all over the United Kingdom but could be a great facility for everyone in the public sector. Does he agree that, although the great exhibition of Prince Albert was execrated by everybody before it was put in place, when it was finished it left us with three fine museums, which have been of tremendous benefit—at least until people were forced to pay to enter them?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend gives me a useful opportunity to remind her that, from 1 April, all children in the country will be able to enter those three fine museums for free.
The people of Greenwich and Greenwich borough council will be carefully involved, as they have been throughout the development of the dome, in any decisions about its future use. We need to balance the need to achieve a good return for the public investment that has gone into construction of the dome; the best possible regeneration for the Greenwich peninsula; and future use of the building as a real cultural asset for the whole nation. The competition will be all about getting that balance right.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will establish an ad hoc Select Committee on the effects of sanctions against Iraq. [72128]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): There are no plans to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: As the mind of the Foreign Affairs Committee is elsewhere, and as apparently more ordnance has been rained down on Iraq since Desert Fox than during Desert Fox, which in turn involved more ordnance and bombs than the Gulf war, are we not in a state of undeclared war? Should not an ad hoc Select Committee at least look at that?
In relation to the oil-for-food programme, should not a Select Committee examine Dennis Halliday and Michael Stone, the people who run the programme, who argue that it was in no way corrupted, and take into account the rupturing of the oil line with Turkey? Finally, could such a Committee look at the Tribune of a fortnight ago—and those horrifying pictures on the front of the paper that I sent to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council? Should it not be considered whether it is really the job of a Labour Government in effect to do that to those babies?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has pursued those issues with vigour on a number of occasions. I am sure that he will continue to do so. His original question was to do with the processes by which the House deals with those matters, rather than with their substance. I have heard his concerns, and he can be sure that I will pass them on to the relevant colleagues. I also know that he will continue to pursue the matter, as he has this afternoon, with his usual vigour and intellect.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Affairs Committee

Ms Rosie Winterton: What proposals she plans to put forward for reviving the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. [72129]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government have invited the Modernisation Committee to consider reviving and adapting the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. The aim is to provide a forum in which the affairs of particular regions can be debated. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will come up with specific proposals soon, although, clearly, they will not command universal support.

Ms Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will inquiries by the Committee be considered by the whole House, particularly inquiries into issues such as the distribution of European structural funds, which would affect not only areas such as South Yorkshire in the English region of Yorkshire and Humberside, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Beckett: I see no reason why European structural funds could not be debated by a regional Standing


Committee, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, if the wish is to look more widely at how those funds are handled throughout the United Kingdom, that might not be the proper remit of such a Committee. It could, however, form one of the ways in which some of those matters can be reviewed.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Lady think that, if such a Standing Committee were formed, it would consider transport matters, and strategic transport matters in particular? Further to that, does she think that the Committee would consider the absolute refusal of Ministers with responsibility for transport to visit the most difficult transport problem in the south-east—the A3 at Hindhead?

Mrs. Beckett: I suspect that many areas would compete for that description, but I have suggested to the Modernisation Committee that a Committee of that type should determine for itself what are the issues on which it should focus and to which it should give the highest priority. No doubt, the right hon. Lady's case is one which it would take into account.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I assure the President of the Council that we welcome the re-examination of the validity and value of the Standing Committee, but do the Government intend to examine the advantages of devolution to our business in other respects? Do they intend to put a proposition to the Modernisation Committee, or the Procedure Committee, or do they intend to propose other ways in which the House can take advantage of the so-called devolution benefit?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Procedure Committee is now considering the impact and aftermath of devolution, on which I shall give evidence to it tomorrow. That, however, is only one context in which the House is considering the variety of ways and forums in which we can raise the many issues that are of concern to Members throughout the House. What we are trying to do is find time to expand our capacity for debate.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, many of us in the regions will welcome the provision of extra parliamentary time to examine the problems. Is she also aware—I am sure that she is—that the Select Committee responsible not only for transport and the environment but for regional affairs makes it its business to examine transport problems in considerable detail? That Committee would probably have a little to say if there were any question of changing existing responsibilities.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her courtesy, and for her reminder to the House. I do not think that any of us wishes to encroach on the work of existing Select Committees; we wish merely to provide space in which matters can be aired that cannot easily be aired at present.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Agenda 2000 will give the Government more responsibility in the administration of European Union structural funds. Can the right hon. Lady assure us that those of us in regions

that might lose out dramatically under Agenda 2000 will be given a chance to review the position, and that a specific mechanism and procedures will be established if there is not to be a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to provide a specific mechanism and procedures relating to Agenda 2000, but such matters can be raised in a variety of ways in the House—for instance, in the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—and I am sure that will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — Law Commission Bills

Mr. Andrew Dismore: What representations she has received on the procedure for passing non-contentious Law Commission Bills through Parliament. [72131]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): My right hon. Friend the President of the Council recently met the chairman of the Law Commission, and has also answered a number of parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend. The House will know that the Standing Orders already provide for an expedited procedure for Law Commission Bills.

Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than half the 21 Bills considered by the House over the past five years spent a minute or less on the Floor of the House? Moreover, a substantial backlog accumulated under the last Government, with the result that 45 reports require legislation. Could not the Modernisation Committee consider whether the expedited procedure could be improved, enabling us to clear some of the backlog and justify the substantial amount that the Government and the country give the Law Commission to make non-controversial proposals to make the law more effective and understandable to people in general?

Mr. Tipping: As my hon. Friend will recognise, over the past two years there has been some improvement in the number of Bills that have been presented. Obviously, we want to make progress as quickly as we can. My hon. Friend mentioned uncontentious Bills. Part of the art of the House lies in spotting an uncontentious Bill and hoping that it remains uncontentious. It is not always the case that all Bills are dealt with in a minute; as my hon. Friend knows, some have taken considerably longer.
My hon. Friend advocates a look at the procedures. If the House were minded to experiment with the notion of a Main Committee, or a Principal Committee, there might be scope for that.

Mr. John Bercow: What are the precise criteria for categorising Law Commission Bills as non-contentious?

Mr. Tipping: All Bills are referred to the relevant Department, which judges whether a Bill should be presented as part of the legislative programme. Ministers and officials make judgments, in discussions with the Law Commission and others, on how parliamentary time can


be used most effectively. Ultimately, there is limited parliamentary time, and priorities have to be set, and judgments made, about the best use of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Parliamentary Calendar

Sir Sydney Chapman: What further plans she has to change the parliamentary calendar. [72132]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have none currently, although I expect that the Modernisation Committee will want to review the success of the current experiment on Thursdays and of the recent short Adjournment.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I appreciate that the exact length of a parliamentary Session has to be flexible, and that it depends on the progress—or lack of progress—of Government Bills, but will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to the House that, if we are to continue to proceed with half-term holidays or half-term constituency weeks, the dates of those will-as they could quite reasonably-be announced months, if not years, ahead? Will she consider that point, as I think that implementing it would be very helpful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am always very conscious both of greater efficiency in handling the business of the House, so that we are able to give more notice of dates, and of greater convenience to hon. Members. We seek to give as much notice as we can. I am particularly mindful of the important Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman and of all the work that it has to fit in. Although we endeavour to give as much notice as possible, it is not possible to give as much notice as we should like to give when—as happened on the most recent occasion—a decision is taken only a few weeks ahead to conduct an experiment.

Mr. David Winnick: As we are all in modernising mood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Are we?"]—with the exception of a few Opposition Members, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she is satisfied with the current arrangements for the summer recess? I realise, of course, that it is not a holiday: I do not know many times I, like my colleagues, have told constituents, "We're not really on holiday. I am conducting my surgery and other work." However, is it really necessary to have a three-month break? Can we not rearrange matters, including party conferences? Why cannot we—like other Parliaments in western Europe—at least come back in the middle of September?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that concern, which is often aired. All hon. Members have their own experience. Speaking for myself, I cannot say that I have ever had a three-month break in the summer—most years, I have been lucky to have three weeks. People occasionally reconsider arrangements for party conferences and other matters, but—as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—many such arrangements are booked up many years in advance. It not a simple matter to change them.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chiselhurst): Given the President of the Council's role as representative of the House of Commons within government, will she give an absolute guarantee that, whatever changes are proposed for consideration of the House under the rather dubious rubric of modernisation, the one thing that will not happen is a reduction of the time available to the House to scrutinise and hold to account the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot say that I have so far presided over a reduction in the sitting hours of the House. For most of the years during which I have been a Member, the House has sat for very long hours, but not always to the greatest efficiency. When changes have been made, they have been made at the will of the House, to promote greater efficiency.

Sir George Young: If the right hon. Lady does plan any changes to the parliamentary calendar, will she observe the convention that was observed in earlier Parliaments, of making changes only by consent? Will the Government also not use their parliamentary majority to force through changes that may have impacts on the rights of the Opposition? Does she agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that what is wanted by many hon. Members is not so much change as certainty? How can any hon. Member make long-standing personal engagements if they do not know the dates of the Easter, Whitsun or summer recess until a few days before they happen?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is infinitely more notice of all those matters now than there was—not only when I was first elected to the House but when Labour was in opposition and he and the Conservative party were the Government. When changes are proposed, I am always anxious to take along all hon. Members to the greatest degree possible. That is, and always will be, the Government's wish. The right hon. Gentleman will know that what sometimes appears to be consent suddenly evaporates.

Oral Answers to Questions — Welsh Devolution

Mr. Gareth Thomas: If she will make a statement on the procedural consequences for the House of Welsh devolution. [72133]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I shall be giving oral evidence tomorrow to the Procedure Committee on the memorandum already submitted by the Government on the procedural consequences of devolution.

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend may be aware that it is reputed that St. David drank nothing stronger than water. Will she take it from me that, this year, many people in Wales will be raising a glass to our patron saint with particular enthusiasm, given the imminent arrival of the National Assembly for Wales? However, does she agree that it is essential, even in a devolved era, for Wales to have a strong voice in Westminster, particularly through the Welsh Affairs Committee, given that primary legislative powers will remain in this place?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the tremendous reputation of St. David, although I was not aware that it was based on his drinking water. I assure my hon. Friend that I have the greatest respect, as do all hon. Members, for the fine

record of the existing Committees. He will know that the matters that he has raised are under consideration by the Procedure Committee. I await its recommendations with interest.

Elderly People (Long-term Care)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At the general election in May 1997, we promised to set up a royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly. In December 1997, I announced to the House the establishment of that royal commission, to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university.
Since then, the commission has met formally on 15 occasions, taken oral evidence from 67 individuals, conducted seven public hearings in different parts of the country and received evidence from 400 organisations and a total of 2,040 written submissions. Between them, the commissioners met over 1,000 individuals, made more than 100 visits and held 140 meetings. They were assisted by a reference group representing the leading organisations concerned with the care of the elderly.
The commission presented its report to me on Friday 26 February, after it had been submitted to the Queen. It is being published today. I am grateful to Sir Stewart Sutherland and all the members of the commission for their diligence and the swift delivery of their report. All 12 commissioners signed the report. Two of them have submitted a note of dissent on three particular aspects—and even they were not unanimous.
The task of the commission was to look into how best to provide sustainable long-term funding for good-quality care of the elderly and how the costs should be shared between taxpayers and the individual. The report rightly makes it clear that
there is no obvious answer
and calls for an "informed debate" on the recommendations. I support that call. The Government's response must await the outcome of that debate, which I hope and expect will begin with the publication of the report today. [Interruption.] I shall not divert my remarks to respond to the ridiculous noises from the Conservatives.
I hope that it will be useful to the House for me to highlight the royal commission's major conclusions and recommendations. First, it concludes that there is not a demographic time bomb that our economy and society cannot cope with. Secondly, it concludes that the possible need for long-term care is a risk that cannot be met adequately from individual income or savings, so some pooling of risk is necessary. Thirdly, it concludes that private insurance will not deliver the necessary cover at an acceptable cost. Fourthly, it concludes that the costs will have to be met by contributions from the taxpayer and individuals. Fifthly, it concludes that the costs of long-term care can and should be separated into living costs, housing costs and personal care costs. Sixthly, it recommends that people receiving care should be expected to contribute to their living costs and to their housing costs, but the costs of their personal care should be met by the taxpayer.
The note of dissent rejects that separation and the proposal that individuals should not contribute to the cost of the care element. It gives greater priority to the quality of care.
The commission estimates that to adopt its proposals would cost the taxpayer between £800 million and £1.2 billion a year at 1995 prices. It estimates additional

costs to the taxpayer of lesser options such as a short-term disregard of house value at £90 million a year; changing the limits of the present means test at between £150 million to £200 million a year; and making nursing care in nursing homes free at £220 million a year. As the report states:
This is a complex issue
and none of the options is easy. We have to get this right.
In considering the commission's proposals, we will all need to bear in mind, first, that taxpayers' money used to relieve the costs to individuals cannot be used also to improve the quality of care or to extend it, although that might be a higher priority for some older people. Secondly, the proposals, like all aspects of taxation and benefits, would shift money from one income group to another—in this case, to some better-off people from some who are worse off. The report recommends that the best way to help carers is to improve the services provided for the people for whom they care. The note of dissent argues that priority should be given instead to respite care.
The report emphasises the need to improve cultural awareness in services offered to ethnic minority elders. It also recommends that the Government should consider applying to the personal care needs of younger disabled people the same principles that they recommend for the care of the elderly.
While the commission has been sitting, the Government have been getting on with making improvements to the treatment and care available to elderly people. We have already made a start on a number of aspects covered by the report. These include: extending direct payments to over-65s; breaking down barriers between the health and social services; improving local standards through the long-term care charter—a clear manifesto commitment; changing the law to allow local NHS and local councils to pool budgets; providing £750 million over three years for initiatives to promote rehabilitation and prevention; providing for more consistent standards of care in health and social services; preparing for independent inspection of nursing homes, old peoples' homes and social care through regional care commissions; starting work on a national service framework for older people to lay down how the NHS and local councils should provide them with high-quality services in every part of the country; encouraging care providers to promote independence rather than dependency; and launching a new strategy for carers, financed with £140 million over the next three years.
We accept—as does the royal commission—that there is a strong case in principle for phasing out the payment of the £600 million of residential allowances and transferring those resources, via a special grant, to local authorities. However, we will need carefully to work through the implications of the change on both the benefit system and the independent care sector before we take any final decisions.
The royal commission's major recommendation—that a national care commission should be established to monitor trends, set standards and represent consumers—will need to be considered in the light of the changes that are already taking place or are in the pipeline.
The Government have been taking other action to help elderly people. Those measures include: restoring free eye tests for pensioners; commissioning a report from the health advisory service on the treatment of elderly people


in acute hospitals; instructing all hospitals to take immediate action to improve the supply of bed linen, food and drink to elderly people; making a start on providing greater financial security by reform of the pension system; improving the Government's overall approach through the better government for older people initiative; and establishing an inter-ministerial group to take the initiative forward across Government.
Along with the rest of the country, the Government will study the report of the royal commission with great care. During our consideration, we will apply the principles set out in our welfare reform Green Paper—in particular: expecting people to insure against foreseeable risks and to make provision for their retirement; making sure that those most in need can enjoy a dignified and fulfilling life; providing public services of high quality to the whole community; and making sure that the system is flexible, efficient and easy to use.
At the general election, we committed ourselves to setting up the royal commission because we recognised that, although only one in five old people need long-term personal care, as people approach old age, many become anxious about how well they will be looked after, who will look after them, how much it will cost and who will pay.
I hope that the royal commission's report and the debate that it will stimulate will help us to find a way of ensuring that people have access to high-quality long-term care that is fair to both individuals and the taxpayer. I hope that it will be founded on a consensus that will stand the test of time: a dependable contract across the generations. That is of great importance because, second only to good health, elderly people seek financial certainty and security, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for allowing me to have a copy of the report half an hour before he began to speak. I offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Many hon. Members will know that she has recently suffered a family bereavement.
We, too, will need time to study the weighty report, but we recognise the unfairness in the present system of financing long-term care, and the perverse signals that it delivers, penalising those who are thrifty and responsible and rewarding those who are not. The previous Government significantly raised the threshold for the asset test to bring some immediate relief. The problem requires an immediate response from this Government.
If the Government, having established a royal commission and delayed acting for two years, do not intend to accept the commission's recommendations, they must urgently propose alternatives. We have offered an alternative: a system of insurance as part of a partnership between the state and the individual that would protect people's homes and savings, bring security and peace of mind to those who have worked hard to accumulate assets, and go a considerable way towards removing the sense of unfairness in the present system.
Labour has rejected that eminently sensible approach. As several Labour Members observed over the weekend, Labour in opposition implied that a Labour Government

would act swiftly and radically to tackle the whole problem; but, as with so many pre-election pledges, the Government have ducked the issue and, 22 months after the general election, 40,000 people a year are still forced to sell their homes to pay for long-term care.
The establishment of a royal commission gave the Government an alibi for inaction. That alibi is now gone, and the Government must tell the people of Britain what their policy is. The longer that they dither, the more people will lose their homes. What is the time scale for some definite proposals? Is not the truth that the Government would rather drive the issue into the long grass until after the next general election—another example of a cynical promise made to buy votes from the elderly and vulnerable at the previous one?
Media interest has focused on the recommendations on payment for the nursing element of care, and the main report has defined that very widely. Even so, at least half the total cost of residential care would not be met by the state even if the commission's proposals were implemented in full. The proposals on nursing care will not stop people being forced to sell their houses and consume their savings but they will impose a considerable burden on public spending.
The Secretary of State cited a figure for the immediate cost of the commission's recommendations. What is the estimated cost of those proposals projected forward to 2051, as calculated by the commission? A proper solution must address the whole problem, as it affects today's pensioners and those soon to retire, and as it affects future generations of pensioners: those who are in a position, if the Government send the right signals, to take a broader view of provision for care in old age.
The solution must be sustainable, not based on half-costed promises and blank cheques that future generations of taxpayers and politicians may decline to sign. Above all, it must be a fair solution that does not penalise those who have worked hard and saved, bought their own homes, and taken responsibility for themselves.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the problem, identified in the note of dissent, of under-resourcing by social services departments for independent sector placements, and the resulting pressure that that is placing on the independent care sector? What does he intend to do about that? Does he agree that it is scandalous that, while many people assessed as needing residential care are being forced to wait on a waiting list for it, some local authorities persist in wasting money on direct provision of care, which is often 40, 50 or 60 per cent. more expensive to provide than comparable or better care provided by the independent sector?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would consider this report in the light of the principles set out in the welfare reform Green Paper. One of those principles to which he referred is expecting people to be
insured against foreseeable risks and make provision for their retirement.
Does he regard long-term care as a foreseeable risk and, if so, does he intend to propose an insurance-based solution?

Mr. Dobson: I made no reference in my statement—because I would like to establish a consensus about the future of long-term care and its funding—to the fact that the present shambles is one that we inherited from the previous Government, who did virtually nothing about it


over 19 years. The hon. Gentleman recommends to the House some measures that the previous Government were contemplating but did not get round to introducing in those 19 years. I refer him to paragraph 5.13 of chapter 5 of the report, which says of the scheme he talked about:
The scheme as presented by the previous Government was rather complex, and it was difficult to see where the benefits lay, and to whom.
That is generous royal commission-speak for, "It was a load of rubbish."
At the election, we made no easy promises. We promised that we would establish a royal commission. We set one up and it reported in the second-shortest period of any royal commission in the past 40 years. I am very pleased that it has done so and the time that it took is greatly to its credit. We will consider what to do in response to its detailed and thoughtful points and, in the case of the note of dissent, conflicting points that it has put to us and the whole country after its 14 months of deliberations.
I have spelled out the 10 steps that the Government are already taking, which are referred to in the report. Many of those steps are welcomed in the report. Far from postponing progress, we got on with things even before the royal commission started sitting. We are not interested in making half-costed promises. That is what the country got sick of under the previous Government. We want to consider the report carefully and listen to all the representations that are made by all the various interest groups in the light of the royal commission's proposals and the detailed background to them. Then we will come to some decisions.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Oh!

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman who purports to sit on the Front Bench groans at that, but he did not groan during the 19 years in which his Government did nothing, nor when they made short-term and ridiculous decisions.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked the estimated costs of the proposals in 2051. The estimated costs are more than £6 billion and, if they turn out to be true, I shall come back to haunt the House of Commons. No estimates over such a period of time have ever turned out to be true, and I am sure that these will not.
What we have in the report is a series of thoughtful points. The royal commission has gone into the matter in great depth and, in due course, we shall give our response to the new points that it has raised—just as we got on with 10 of the report's recommendations even before it was published.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the publication of the royal commission report. This morning, I met the elderly relative of a lady aged 91 who is in a nursing home. The relative had just had the sorry task of selling the lady's terraced house—worth £26,000—to meet nursing home costs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right for people in the final months of their lives to suffer from distress and uncertainty instead of enjoying dignity and comfort?
We need to consider the royal commission recommendations carefully, as the expenditure implications are significant. However, in an earlier era, people said that we

could never afford a national health service, yet the country proved more optimistic. This is a big problem, and I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to come up with a big solution.

Mr. Dobson: All I can say is that I have never said that we cannot afford the propositions advanced either by those commissioners who presented the note of dissent, or by the majority on the commission. The national health service was first established by a Labour Government, as a result of boldness and real commitment, and the welfare state was also established by a Labour Government. Both projects were implemented on a basis of consensus which even the Tory party of the day had to accept and which prevailed for 25 to 30 years.
That is what I want to achieve with the proposals for long-term care. We shall do no service to old people unless we can establish a system that, broadly speaking, commands the support of all the parties in the country, and of the people of this country. That is the only way in which we can provide the certainty and security that people want, and it may take us quite a time to wrangle out and agree what we should do. I hope that the odd Conservative Member might even see some merit in that.

Mr. Paul Burstow: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see the report shortly before his statement. We welcome the opportunity for constructive dialogue. What older people want more than anything in later life is certainty: if we can give them certainty by building a consensus about the long-term care system, we shall play our part.
Does not the royal commission report offer a practical means of ending the heartache and anger felt by many older people and their families when they are forced to sell their homes to pay for care? Does the Secretary of State understand how disappointed many people will be to learn that he has no plans to end the perverse financial incentive that means that elderly people go into nursing homes instead of being cared for at home?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the sum of £750 million to fund rehabilitation and prevention over the next three years, which he announced in his statement, adds up to little more than 71p per person per day? Will he say more about the timetable of the debate that he is launching? We need to know when the debate will be concluded, as do the people facing the prospect of selling their homes to pay for care.
When will the House see the Secretary of State's proposals to safeguard long-term care for the elderly? The Secretary of State was right to say that the royal commission, which considered more than 2,000 submissions over 14 months, was one of the quickest in recent years. There were numerous leaks from various quarters, and much raising of expectations. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although his statement contains many warm and encouraging words, it rests on cold economics? We need a debate, but when will the Secretary of State come back with his proposals?

Mr. Dobson: It is not me but the royal commission that is calling for an informed debate throughout the country, and I assume that the commission expects the Government to await that debate's outcome before


reaching any major decisions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I should immediately adopt as Government policy the proposal that people should—

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is not what he said.

Mr. Dobson: Either I am deaf or the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is stupid.

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was necessary. In addition, the Select Committee on Modernisation recommended that I have statements completed in 45 minutes. Many hon. Members are standing and, unless questions and answers are brisk, a lot of them will be disappointed.

Mr. Dobson: I was trying to answer the six or seven questions put by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), Madam Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman said that, if we agree that the state should pay for personal care, all the problems about people not being able to afford long-term care would be resolved. At least, that is what I understood him to say. However, it is not so. It is quite possible that, if people must pay their living and housing costs, some of them will have to make a contribution that they cannot afford. The problems will not be resolved by adopting in full the proposals of the royal commission.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about getting rid of the perverse arrangement that encourages people who are being looked after properly in their own homes to move out of them and into residential care. Unless my memory fails me, I thought that I had referred to our consideration of shifting the residential allowance so that it would be paid not to care homes, but to local authorities, as the royal commission has suggested.
Policy is moving in the right direction. In deference to Madam Speaker's reasonable wish that I should sit down quickly, let me add only that the royal commission has asked for an informed debate. Today starts that debate, and we shall respond at the end of it.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that his distinction between the costs that all of us will have to meet in retirement—that is, for a pension—and the risk of long-term care costs that some of us will have to meet is most important in the debate for which he and the royal commission have called? On the pensions side, it is appropriate that we all save, but most of us will not need long-term care and there is a need for insurance cover. If such cover is made universal, the costs for each of us will be cheaper.
One further point arises from the distinction made by the royal commission on the covering of nursing home costs and hotel costs. Does the commission give any idea of the percentage of pensioners who currently cover those costs from their pension and other income? If it does not, could my right hon. Friend's Department provide that information so that the debate may commence? May I emphasise how right my right hon. Friend was to say that,

if we are to have a lasting solution, we need to approach the problem on the basis of consensus, even if the Opposition are slightly reluctant to join us?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. We certainly need a consensus. To the best of my recollection, having read the report fairly carefully—

Mr. Field: And the appendices?

Mr. Dobson: No, I have not read them. I did not even bring them to the Chamber in case I suffered a double hernia carrying them in. If I had, I might need care rather more prematurely than I would wish it.
The risk of needing long-term care and the scale of the cost is such that people cannot be expected to afford it, as the report says, without some form of pooling of risk. The report considers various options. On the details of distribution and separation of costs, and the ability to pay them, the distinction is not—to the best of my recollection—in the body of the report. My memory may be failing me, but I think that that is the case. The distinction may appear in the vast appendices, but the information asked for by my right hon. Friend is vital to the debate, and it is related to the points that I made in response to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

Mr. John MacGregor: I welcome the speed with which the royal commission has completed its report. I must press the Secretary of State on one question, which he has so far refused to answer—the increasing concern among the elderly, and their relatives, who have saved for retirement or bought a home, not least a council home, on fairly modest incomes about what they see as the unfairness and social injustice of what they have to pay for retirement in residential nursing care when others have it paid for them. I understand that the royal commission has put forward a recommendation that does not seem very expensive. Also, it is not merely a case of the injustice because, now that the issue has been so highlighted, unless the right hon. Gentleman deals with it, it will become more difficult to persuade people to provide for their retirement. Will he deal with that issue quickly and, if he does not accept the royal commission's recommendation, find some other solution to the problem?

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman, in making that fairly reasonable contribution, should bear in mind that the basic position of the royal commission is that personal care should be paid for by the taxpayer, but that it has a number of intermediate stages, which are considerably cheaper and would bring about some changes and a amelioration of the situation about which people are rightly concerned. We have to consider all of those. Under the royal commission's proposal, there would be a transfer of taxpayer's money. Some money would come from people who are worse off than those receiving the benefit of it.

Ms Joan Walley: I thank the royal commission for the herculean task that it has performed and I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 10 steps that he has already taken. It is crucial now to engage in informed public debate throughout the country. He is well aware of concerns in


north Staffordshire about the closure of national health service continuing care beds. Will he assure the House that he will continue to take a keen interest in what is happening in north Staffordshire so that, together, we can build consensus around what is needed for genuine long-term care for the elderly?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. and well-informed Friend knows, the range of arrangements that can be made for people who need long-term care is great. Clearly, we must try to encourage as many people as can be properly cared for in their own homes to be so cared for, and a range of assistance is available. Certainly, the review of the number, nature and location of NHS beds, which I set in train in September, has to be related to the royal commission's proposals, because they are clearly related.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We would all give the publication of the report a general welcome. However, is not a responsibility placed on elected representatives to participate in the ensuing debate and a particular responsibility placed on the Government to lead it? In light of the right hon. Gentleman's most recent answer, what emphasis will he place on respite care, which often seems to be left out of our debates, although those working in such care contribute so much in looking after the elderly, and, in many cases, people with disabilities? Does he agree that progressive taxation might mean a redistribution of wealth, which might resolve some of the problems?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady raised two points. First, if I stated the Government's position now, no one would believe for a minute that we were going to take a blind bit of notice of any of the public debate. Everyone knows that and so it would be silly of me to give our view, which will no doubt be modified as a result of the discussions and representations. Secondly, let me illustrate the dilemma on carers and respite care. The bulk of the members of the royal commission do not think that particular help should be given to carers, other than by improving the services that are provided for the people whom the carers care for. The minority note of dissent is that greater priority should be given to carers. The Government are finding £140 million extra for them in the next three years and so, in that matter, tend to be going along with the note of dissent before people have dissented.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position for the record? Are not those people who advocate a system of private insurance in effect advocating higher taxation? Private contributions to a private insurance scheme are a substitute for taxation. From that, can we not adduce that the Tories want to put people's taxes up to pay for it?

Mr. Dobson: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. The only trouble is that, if people continue to advocate that, they do so in the face of all the evidence that the private insurance market could not cope, even if people did pay in.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not obvious that the Government led the elderly up the garden path before the general election? Not only that, but the

Secretary of State is shocked at the speed with which the royal commission reported and desperate to find ways of putting off making any decisions. How long will the national debate continue? How long does he expect to be able to continue to put off making a decision? When will the people who are so desperately anxious about all this learn their fate?

Mr. Dobson: I think that the concept of "ignorance is strength" was introduced in the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four", but it certainly survives in 1999. In our general election manifesto, we promised to set up a royal commission on the long-term care of elderly, so no one was misled by that. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I have been astonished and disappointed that the royal commission reported in 14 months. As, in its terms of reference, I asked it to report in 12 months, I think that his charge falls.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend reverse the Tory Government's policy of massive cuts in the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people with the aim of shunting more and more elderly people into the private sector? Will he give an absolute guarantee that every frail elderly person who requires a national health service bed will be offered one? It would be a gross betrayal of the generation that built the NHS if those people were denied an NHS bed in their time of need.

Mr. Dobson: We must ensure that every frail old person who needs care gets it the most appropriate setting. For many, being in their own home but properly looked after by people who come in is infinitely preferable to going into any other set up. One of the merits of being at home is that people do not catch things from other people. Large institutions with many frail old people are very susceptible to cross-infection and people suffer as a result. One of the reasons why I decided to establish a review of the number and nature of beds in the health service was because we must ensure that everyone who needs an NHS bed of whatever nature gets one when they need it, whatever part of the country they are in.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The royal commission sounds very much in line with the findings of the Commission on Social Justice some years ago for the Labour party. However, there is a greater spirit of disillusion now. Pension funds have been raided so that those who thought that they were preparing for their futures are worse off. Those who were providing for their health care have lost their tax relief. The Government have shown little courage on pensions. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the home counties are having their social services and health budgets squeezed so that they are unable to deliver even the objectives set by the Government. The words on carers are fine, but tell that to Surrey county council, which lost £6 million from its social services budget. Will he consider the challenge in The Times today, where the Prime Minister is accused of propaganda imagery rather than political debate? We need decisions, not propaganda, because many worried older people want to know what they can rely on. They want the reality, not the rhetoric.

Mr. Dobson: All the old people who are worried are worried about the system that the country inherited from


the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was such a distinguished member. She complains about pension funds being raided, but it was the Conservative Government who specially made them susceptible to raiding, and their friends who mis-sold pensions and so robbed people—those are the main sources of robbery of pensioners. As I said before, we are trying, and I continue to try, to get everyone to look carefully at the royal commission's report and the note of dissent, to listen to what other people say and take notice of that, and to see whether we can establish something approaching a consensus. In my opening statement, I made no reference to the Conservative party or its record; it is only since Conservative Members have risen that politics has entered into this matter.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The issue is one that causes many older people great anxiety, and no one knows what will happen to them in the final years of their life. As part of trying to achieve consensus, is it not important to ensure that there is universal interpretation of the rules and regulations throughout the whole country, and that everyone has the same opportunity to receive the care that they need, wherever they happen to live? Is it not also important that, when the sale of old people's houses is considered, we recognise that, sometimes, other people live in the property, and address that problem?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend probably recollects, we make it clear in the social services White Paper that we expect social services and other authorities to pursue a national policy both on provision of care and on anything connected with the sale of assets belonging to those who are helped. We must aim for a universal approach. My hon. Friend touches on the most upsetting aspect of all, which arises when an old person finally goes into care: a member of the family who might have devoted two decades to looking after that old person can, under the current system, which we did not introduce, be thrown out on to the street. That is probably the biggest injustice of the lot.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the report. I have to say, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that I have never regarded him as a particularly consensual person. Will he give an undertaking that he will make a decision, whether or not he believes that there is a consensus, before the next election, so that we can get on with dealing with an urgent problem? While we are on the subject, when will the Secretary of State and his Department respond to the Centre for Policy on Ageing report on national required standards for residential care and nursing homes? We know that those institutions face serious problems—in my county, they have been underfunded to the tune of £4 million from social services—and they face high compliance costs unless the matter is properly worked out.

Mr. Dobson: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is, yes. As for his second question, we are producing a consultation document on that very matter, and it should go out shortly.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having established the commission

and published the report so quickly; it will be beneficial to millions of people. May I draw his attention to representations that I have received from people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease? They have to go into private homes for respite care, because organisations such as the Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health NHS trust are closing hospital beds and driving people into the private sector. Will he take action to ensure that no more hospital beds that cater for care of the elderly and for long-term care will be closed and that people who require respite care in an NHS hospital will be given that facility?

Mr. Dobson: I shall certainly do my best to ensure that people who need respite care get that care. However, as my hon. Friend knows, I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box not knowing the details of a specific case and give a blank undertaking that such-and-such a place will never close. After all, in some cases, places are closed because they are of such a standard that we would not want our relatives to go there, so we have to be careful about the undertakings that we give. It must be our mission to ensure that every old person in need of long-term care gets the appropriate care in the appropriate bed. I am sure that, for many old people, the most appropriate bed is their own, where they can be looked after properly.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not think that this is a party political issue, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is wrong to say that we are being slow and reserved. It will be a non-party political matter until the Government produce their recommendations.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with what the Liberals are up to with regard to residential and nursing homes in Torbay? They are increasing council tax expenditure by building new residential and nursing homes and commandeering existing buildings for homes that they will run, while the private sector—which comprises small local residential homes that do a splendid job—are half empty. Is the Secretary of State happy to see the council tax payer paying more when such splendid residential homes stand empty?

Mr. Dobson: I generally assume, almost on principle, that the Liberals are up to no good. However, I should not comment about their particular activities in the Torbay area as there may be another side to the story.

Dr. Howard Stoate: During my years as a GP, I came across many cases involving people who stayed in totally inappropriate surroundings for far too long—causing great distress to not only themselves but their carers and families—because they were worried literally sick about whether they could afford long-term care. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents—both present and future pensioners—that they will be treated with respect and dignity?

Mr. Dobson: The crucial point that we must bear in mind at all times is that everybody in our society has the right to be treated with dignity. All generations owe it to previous generations to ensure that they receive such treatment. Of all generations throughout the history of this country, the present working generation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to retired people, who defeated Hitler, founded the welfare state and the national health service and then paid for it.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the polite, courteous and emollient answer given to question No. 33, which was addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, about a Select Committee on Iraq. However, that response did not refer to the issue of the strike against the pipeline linking Iraq and Turkey, and all the consequences that that will have for the oil-for-food programme. Madam Speaker, have you received any request from the Foreign Office to comment on, or make a statement about, this rather urgent matter?

Madam Speaker: I heard the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. However, I have not been informed that the Foreign Office is seeking to make a statement on that issue.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—whom I have notified about my intention to raise this point of order—to speak at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition during the Welsh affairs debate in this place and proceed to talk down Welsh manufacturing industry? That is what he did—

Madam Speaker: Order. No, I am sorry. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. I can take only points of order, which must refer to issues that I can do something about. The hon. Gentleman has so far raised a matter of politics and debate across the Floor of the House. He must raise a point that I can deal with.

Mr. Smith: I hope that I shall continue along those lines, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Woodspring represents a constituency in a region that stands to benefit directly—it is in direct competition for jobs and investment—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should first work out the point of order to me and then raise it so that I might be able to respond to it. It is no concern of mine what constituency the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) represents or what he says at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition. This is a free Parliament and the hon. Member for Woodspring can say exactly what he wants, provided that it is within parliamentary terms and that he uses good language.

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 4

DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER AGE

'.—(1) In section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "subsection (1 A)" there shall be inserted the words "or (1AA)";
(b) in subsection (1A), after the word "circumstances" there shall be inserted the word "first"; and
(c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1AA) The other circumstances so referred to are that the person is uner the age of sixteen and the other person has attained that age."

(2) In section 13 of that Act (indecency between men)—

(a) after the words "another man", in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in the circumstances described below"; and
(b) at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"The circumstances referred to above are that the man is under the age of sixteen and the other man has attained that age."

(3) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967—

(a) the words from "a homosexual act" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and
(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and
(b) a homosexual act by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen years and the other party has attained that age."

(4) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(8A) A person under the age of sixteen years does not commit an offence under subsection (5)(a) or (c) above if he commits or is party to the commission of a homosexual act with a person who has attained that age."

(5) In paragraph (1) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982—

(a) the words from "a homosexual act" to the end shall become sub—paragraph (a); and
(b) after that sub—paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and
(b) a homosexual act by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of seventeen years and the other party has attained that age.".'—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Defence against charges under Sexual Offences Act 1956—
'( ) Where a person ("A") is charged with an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 with another person ("B"), it shall be a defence for A to prove that, at the time of the activity, he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B was under 16.'.
New clause 3—Defence against charges of homosexual activity (Northern Ireland)—
'( ) In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), at the end there shall be inserted—
( ) A man (A) is not guilty of an offence of doing a homosexual act with another man (B) where B is under the age of 17, if A is under the age of 25 and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes B to be of the age of 17 or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.".'.
Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Boateng: The new clause will have the effect that, in England and Wales, it will not be an offence for a person under 16 to engage in buggery or for a male under 16 to commit an act of gross indecency with a male aged 16 or over or be a party to, or procure the commission of, an act of gross indecency with a male aged 16 or over.
The new clause does not affect the liability of a person over the age of 16 who engages in such activities with a person under 16. Our whole purpose is to ensure that such people are liable in the criminal law.
Both parties will also continue to remain liable in the criminal law if they are both under the age of 16. To do otherwise would be to negate the age of consent entirely, and that clearly would not be acceptable. Furthermore, it might allow a 15-year-old to escape any liability for engaging in predatory activity with a younger child, which would clearly be an undesirable consequence.
Similar changes are also made to the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland to decriminalise a male under the age of consent—that is 16 in Scotland and 17 in Northern Ireland—who engages in homosexual activities with someone over that age.
An amendment to provide for the decriminalisation of the younger partner was moved in Committee of the whole House by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), supported by a number of hon. Members, and received widespread support. We undertook to consider the principle behind that amendment, with which we had great sympathy, and to table an acceptable and technically competent amendment that met the will of the Committee if we were satisfied that the change could properly be made in the Bill. That is what we have done through the new clause.
That has also entailed a minor change to the long title of the Bill to cover the circumstances in which behaviour is not criminal, not merely the age.
We were unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon because it referred to no proceedings being taken against a person under the age of consent who engages in buggery or homosexual acts with a person over the age of consent. Our new clause makes it clear that no offence is committed in the first place because the problem does not relate only to instituting criminal proceedings, as I know the hon. Gentleman now recognises. The measure is

necessary in the interests of protecting children. That issue united both sides of the Standing Committee, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who speaks for the Opposition, for the constructive approach that he adopted to the amendment.
We undertook to consult those who are engaged, day to day, in the protection and support of children. They include the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Society and NCH Action for Children, all of which have made it clear that they support the measure. That will be of concern to hon. Members on all sides of the House.
At present, in the case of buggery and male homosexual acts where the older partner is above the age of consent, the law criminalises the younger partner—both boys and girls. Not only does that mean that, in most cases, young homosexual males are treated in a way that young heterosexuals are not, but, most importantly, it does nothing to protect children. It allows adults to threaten what may be naive young boys and girls with the prospect of being brought into the criminal justice system if they complain to another adult about the activities in which they have been involved. That may serve to encourage and facilitate predatory conduct by older men. The Standing Committee was concerned to discourage such conduct and there was universal agreement on the matter.

Mr. John Bercow: I recognise the rationale behind the new clause, but, so that we can take a view on its likely practical significance, will the Minister tell us how many boys under the age of 16 were prosecuted for buggery in 1998?

Mr. Boateng: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in due course about the number of young men under the age of 16 prosecuted for buggery in 1998. If he remains in his place for the duration of the debate, although he has not always graced the Opposition Benches on previous occasions, I will—

Mr. Bercow: I am always in the Chamber.

Mr. Boateng: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of the House, but he has not always been present during previous debates on the Bill. If he remains in his place for some time longer, I promise him that, before the end of today's proceedings, I will let him have the figure.
I suspect that the number of prosecutions, if any, is small, but our concern is to make sure that the measure does not tell against the interest of young people, who might be dissuaded from bringing action against older predatory males for fear of prosecution. As we know, in these matters, fear of prosecution, as much as any actual prosecution, tells on the minds of the young people involved. That concerned the hon. Member for Hertsmere, me and other members of the Committee.
The new clause would stop the continued use of the criminal law as a means of coercion to be used against those whom we in this House wish to protect the most—young children. That is something that we all take very seriously indeed. We have made it clear, however, that other attempts to deal with the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in sexual offences legislation, including


the way that the criminal law treats heterosexual and homosexual activity, must wait for the review of sexual offences and penalties.
I understand the thinking of the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and the hard work that they have put in, but I fear that their amendments are likely to fall foul of our concern that the review that we have instituted should be in a position to take an overview and to tackle the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the course of its work.
Making further ad hoc changes to the law on sexual offences and penalties through the Bill would only add to the inconsistencies in the law. However, we believe that the case for decriminalising the younger partner is so overwhelming that there are no good reasons against doing so now. The other issues raised during the consideration of the Bill about the inconsistencies in the law on sexual offences require a view to be taken of the law as a whole, if we are ever to achieve a rational basis for our law in this area. The new clause does not require that, and it can be adopted without creating any new inconsistencies.
It might be helpful at this stage to deal with the Government's response to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, among others. He will take the House through the effect of his new clauses but, for us, they raise important questions of principle. They concern the defence of reasonable belief on the part of the person committing an offence against a person under the age of consent and go far beyond the changes that we propose in the Bill. The issues raised affect heterosexual offences and homosexual offences.
Our approach to the age of consent has been for Parliament to decide on the simple, straightforward issue of the equalisation of the age of consent. With one exception—the decriminalisation of the younger partner—we have made it clear that other attempts to deal with the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the sexual offences legislation, including the way that the criminal law treats heterosexual and homosexual activity, must wait for the review of sexual offences and penalties. That will disappoint the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but I hope that he understands that we are at least disappointing him consistently.
Making further ad hoc changes to the law on sexual offences and penalties through the Bill would only add to the inconsistencies in the law. We therefore do not intend to go down that road. The main focus of the sexual offences review will to be ensure that the law provides the best possible protection for children and more effective punishment of abusers. It is however necessary to consider the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises as part of that process, and the review will do so.
4.30 pm
We have also made it clear that the review must ensure that the law is fair and non-discriminatory, in accordance with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Northern Ireland Office is working alongside the Home Office on the review of sexual offences and will respond to its recommendations in due course. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will appreciate, the new clause raises a number

of technical issues. I do not intend to go into them at this stage but, if he would like me to deal with them later, I should be only too happy to do so.
We cannot accept the new clauses, which are properly matters to be considered by the review and go far beyond the purposes of the Bill. The policy on such offences needs careful examination in the light of the need to protect children. We have serious concerns that, as they stand, either of those defences might make prosecuting sexual offences substantially more difficult—and we are not having that.
A similar defence to that contained in new clause 3 for Northern Ireland was proposed by hon. Members in Committee. It would have provided a defence for those under 25 in relation to a first charge for such an offence. We consulted a number of children's charities about that, and they believe that even such a limited measure would have serious implications for child protection. We are simply not prepared to accept that. That argument applies even more to a broad defence along the lines of new clause 2, which makes the proposition even more unacceptable to us. The matter will, however, be examined in the course of the review.
I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not press his two new clauses. On that basis, I commend Government new clause 4 and amendment No. 9.

Mr. James Clappison: I wish to make two matters clear. First and most importantly, these issues will be the subject of a free vote, if there is a vote, and any views that I express are personal—my colleagues may take a different view. Secondly, if it is convenient, I should like to deal with the amendments and new clauses in this group together.
I welcome Government new clause 4. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. He adopted many of the points that we made when the matter first came before the House. There is merit in the approach taken in the new clause, as that will serve to protect the younger party, which should be the law's main priority in this area. Thus, there will be a defence for the under-age person where the other party is over age. That is clearly in the interests of bringing the older party to justice. Removing the disincentive to the younger party to report the offence should help to bring older people who enter into inappropriate sexual relationships to justice.
I agree with the form in which the new clause is tabled. When the original amendment was before us, we observed that it would merely have prevented proceedings from being brought, whereas the new clause clarifies that no offence will be committed. That brings the law into line with the existing law on under-age sex with a heterosexual girl. I therefore welcome the new clause, which reflects the arguments that we made earlier in our proceedings.
New clause 2 is important and requires careful consideration. Indeed, it was considered carefully in Committee. It will make available a defence in cases where an older person is charged with an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is sometimes referred to as a statutory defence or a defence of mistake of age.
It is important to note that a defence of mistake of age is available in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. That is, in some ways, the equivalent heterosexual offence. That defence is sometimes called the young man's defence.
If a charge is made relating to under-age sex with a girl under the age of consent, it is a defence for a person under 24 who has not previously been charged with a similar offence if he believed the girl to be 16 or over and had reasonable cause for the belief. That has long been available as a defence in England and Wales for offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl—it goes back many years.
It is worth noting that a similar defence is available in Scotland in the case of both heterosexual and homosexual acts. I listened with interest to the Minister's comments about new clause 3, which would create a defence in the case of offences in Northern Ireland. He referred to consultations that had taken place and said that, in the interests of protecting children, we should not accept the new clause, but it would create an almost identical—if not identical—defence to the one that currently applies in Scotland.
That is an interesting point. I think that the only difference would be that the age of consent would be slightly higher in Northern Ireland—the age of consent being 17, whereas in Scotland it is 16; otherwise, the defence would be the same in Northern Ireland as in Scotland.
In Scotland, in the case of both under-age heterosexual sex and under-age homosexual sex, there is a defence if the defendant has not previously been charged with such an offence, is under 24 and had reasonable cause to believe that the other party was over the age of consent. After thinking carefully about it and reflecting on the debates in Committee, I find it hard to see why the same defence should not be available for people aged under 24 in respect of homosexual acts in England and Wales as is available already in Scotland and, in the case of heterosexual sex, in England and Wales.
Age is important. Different considerations apply where people are older. Someone who is in his late 20s, 30s or 40s should not be able to avail himself of such a defence—as he cannot now do in the case of heterosexual sex—but, where young people are in the same general age bracket, we have to think of the interests of justice and ask: do we want to bring within the ambit of the criminal law a young person who had homosexual relations with an under-age person when he genuinely believed that the under-aged person was over the age of consent and had reasonable grounds for such a belief? Do we really want such a young person to be guilty of a criminal offence, as the law now stands, and to face a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment?
It is important and salient that the availability of that defence be strictly limited.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend erecting a new maxim—that the law for heterosexual offences should generally be the same as that for homosexual offences?

Mr. Clappison: No, I am not erecting a new maxim and was carefully trying not to do so. I was trying to act in the interests of justice and fairness all round, but without necessarily erecting such a principle.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: On the question of justice and fairness, given the enthusiasm that

my hon. Friend has expressed for new clause 4, would it not be proper that an offender under new clause 4 should be reasonably—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. [Interruption.] My apologies. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was outwith the scope of the new clause. He may carry on.

Mr. Swayne: If one of the partners to an act under the terms of new clause 4 claimed as a defence that he thought the other was over 17, would not that defence be perfectly reasonable?

Mr. Clappison: The defendant would have to establish the ingredients of the defence.
Others may disagree with my view, but this is not a legal novelty. As I have said, in heterosexual cases, it has been available as a defence since 1922, and I believe a form of it was introduced in 1885—so it may be a case of returning to Victorian values. As I have said on other occasions when we have debated the Bill, I am now speaking on the basis of my personal view, nor do I seek to equalise the law in every respect. I shall not be presenting a checklist of ways in which the law should be made identical; I am trying to establish a way of acting fairly and in the interests of justice in individual cases.
It should be borne in mind that the availability of the defence is strictly limited by age, and that the onus is on the defendant to establish that he believed that the other party was over the age of consent and had reasonable grounds for that belief. If defendants are still to be given the chance of trial by jury—I hope that they will, in these and in other cases—it will be for an English court and an English jury to use their good sense in deciding the matter.
A defendant will not escape liability by saying that he thought the other party was over the age of consent; he will also have to establish that he had reasonable grounds for that belief, and establish it to the satisfaction of the court.
I believe that the defence that is available in heterosexual cases in England and Wales, and in both heterosexual and homosexual cases in Scotland, should be available in cases such as this in England and Wales. That would be in the interests of justice and fairness all round. I have already commented on new clause 3; new clause 2, however, goes wider than the existing defence for heterosexual sex in a number of important respects.
I note that the new clause refers to knowledge of someone's age, rather than belief, as the basis for a defence. The availability of such a defence is not restricted to those who have previously been charged with similar offences, as in the case of heterosexual sex; and, more important, it is not restricted to those under 24. That is a big difference, in my view: I regard age as an important consideration.

Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be about to deal with this. He is aware from discussions that we have had outside the Chamber that it is extremely unlikely that new clause 2 would have been selected if it had been tabled in exactly the same form as the form in which it was tabled in Committee—which was right, because we do not want to


repeat those arguments now. The principle is the same, however, and the new clause is phrased in exactly the same way as the statutory defence available in the case of an abuse of trust which can be found in clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was about to make that point, but I should have liked him to do so at the outset. I should like to see an amendment providing for a statutory defence directly comparable with the defence that exists for heterosexuals.

Mr. Clappison: I shall, in fact, deal with that point now. By reason of the distinctions that I am making, I am not minded to support new clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman tabled. I do not consider it satisfactory. Much of the blame for that, however, arises from the attempt to use the defence supplied by the Government, about which I shall say more shortly. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the defence in new clause 2 bears a striking similarity to the breach-of-trust defence involving 16 and 17-year-olds in clause 2(2)(a). It may well be—as the hon. Gentleman has perhaps conceded—that those who tabled new clause 2 were trying to avoid inconsistency between the defence provided in their amendments and that provided in the Bill. The defence provided in the Bill is surprising, to say the least. It is also not the only example in the Bill of bad drafting and bad judgment.
4.45 pm
The defence provided in clause 2(2)(a) deals with people in a position of trust. Those who are in a position of trust include those who look after, and are regularly involved in caring for, a younger person. However, unlike those whose sexual activities arise out of other social contexts, surely those who are in a position of trust and are regularly involved in caring for a younger person could reasonably be expected to have some knowledge of the other party's age, and to know whether the other party was under 18.
In breaches of trust involving 16 and 17-year-olds, the Government's proposed defence of mistake of age is not limited by age. A man of 42 and a young man of 18 could therefore rely equally on the defence. The Government's proposed defence is therefore very strange.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend have a view on the activity of television producers who, in their programmes, advocate sexual intercourse with people under 15? A week or so go, a programme was broadcast in which that act was not only physically demonstrated, but advocated and then glorified. Does he think that the programme's producer should be subject to such provisions on prosecution?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who produce and broadcast programmes should be aware of their wider responsibilities. The general scenario that she described was thoroughly unattractive. One would think that responsible broadcasters would seek to avoid such scenarios, and not to give in to the temptation of sensationalism.
It really will not do for the Minister to say, in reply to new clauses 2 and 3, "We can't possibly consider the amendments. We don't want to go beyond changing the law on consent and taking the younger party out of

liability, as we are doing in new clause 4. We want to confine ourselves to those issues, and leave everything else to the review." Ministers cannot say that when they themselves are creating a new form of defence in the Bill.
The defence that the Government are proposing in the Bill is vastly inferior to the long-established defence of mistaken belief, which is available already in the Sexual Offences Act. The Government have made a grave mistake in offering their form of defence, which will widen considerably the current one. The Bill will certainly make the defence of mistaken belief available to much older men—in their 30s, 40s or 50s—whereas the current one is already, rightly, limited to young men under 24, who are therefore in the same general age bracket as the younger person concerned.
The Government are making a mistake in proposing their defence. Moreover, those who tabled new clause 2 may have been attempting to use the Government's proposed defence in their new clause—the passage of which would be a mistake and should be avoided.
In my personal view, in the interests of justice and fairness—bearing in mind the state of the law in England and in Scotland, and in cases involving heterosexual and homosexual sex—a similar form of the defence available in cases involving heterosexual sex should be made available in those involving homosexual sex. However, it should be made available only without watering-down the very strict requirements that must be established—specifically of age and of the person concerned not having been charged previously with the same offence—and with the strict necessity of establishing reasonable belief. I believe that that form of defence is satisfactory and is in the interests of justice, unlike the form of defence proposed by the Government for cases of abuse of trust involving 16 and 17-year-olds.

Mr. David Borrow: I referred on Second Reading to the criminalisation of young gay men under the age of consent. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I tabled an amendment on that in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having thought about the issue and introduced a new clause on it.
I welcome the new clause, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it still leaves many anomalies. I recognise that they cannot all be dealt with in the Bill, but I should like some clarification on the speed with which the review will take place and how quickly some of the issues can be dealt with. Some relevant issues are raised in other amendments that we shall come to. The speed with which they are dealt with by the review will have a bearing on how I vote this afternoon.

Dr. Harris: I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) that the Government have accepted the principle of the amendment that we tabled in Committee and brought it forward in legally watertight terms that they can support with all their might on a free vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has urged me to be gracious in victory. It is against my nature in my early career in this place to be gracious and it appears to be against the nature of the Liberal Democrats in Parliament to be victorious. This is not a party political issue, but I pay tribute to the Minister for his willingness to take it on.
The Minister emphasised the need to protect younger people. I hope that the new clause is also motivated by the desire to end discrimination against gay people—in this case those under 16. From the late 19th century, there has been no equivalent offence of unlawful sexual intercourse for girls under 16 and they cannot even be charged through the Tyrell case law with aiding and abetting. The Minister did not mention the fact that the new clause gets rid of discrimination against homosexuals in criminal law, but I hope that that was part of the reason why the Government brought it forward. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred obliquely to that, while claiming credit—which is in some part due—for supporting the proposal that the hon. Member for South Ribble and I made in Committee.
The new clause has other significant implications that have not yet been mentioned. Today was the first time that I have understood—let alone seen the point of—an intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who pointed out with the perspicacity that only he can muster that, if there were a statutory defence, two 16-year-olds could argue that each thought that the other was over 16, resulting in both of them getting off the charge, because the new clause decriminalises the younger party involved in an act with an older party. For reasons that the Minister made clear in Committee—probably in response to another point by the hon. Member for New Forest, West—it does not decriminalise behaviour between two people under 16, because that would effectively lower the age of consent for homosexual acts below 16. We can be clear that new clause 4 does not lower the age of consent in those cases. As there is no such statutory defence in reverse, the hon. Member for New Forest, West can be reassured, in his terms, that that defence does not exist and that, in certain circumstances, there will be the continued prosecution of consensual offences where, because of the Government's attitude to new clause 2, a genuine mistake has been made as to age in a matter involving an older man and a male under 16.
Although the proposal makes progress, the law in this area is still not the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I believe that the law should be made identical, as far as anatomy allows, because we are considering the equality of people's interests. I know that views have been expressed by independent bodies that there should be equal consideration before the law, and I will refer to that in a moment.
New clause 4 has another significant implication, to which the Minister drew attention—there will no longer be a deterrent for males under 16 to report age of consent offences. Members on both sides of the House will recognise how important it is that, where clearly exploitative offences have taken place, there should be no deterrent for the victim, such as that, person's criminalisation, to prevent him—as it does not prevent her, in cases involving women—from bringing those offences to the attention of the authorities.
If there is not the same defence in law for young male heterosexuals and homosexuals—as proposed by new clause 2, and by its predecessor amendment—significant dangers will be created by the Government's correct action in new clause 4. It is important to recognise that the Government, in proposing new clause 4, have gone

beyond merely bringing forward the decision on the age of consent on a free vote, to which they were committed by the settlement made following the Sutherland case at the European Court of Human Rights.
The Minister will be aware that the Commission, in its early judgment, made it clear that the criminalisation of under-16-year-olds could mean that the Government find themselves outside the European convention on human rights because the offence that criminalises the person under 16 is also that which makes him a victim.
The Government are going no further than they are forced to do by the European convention on human rights, by the Sutherland judgment. In their terminology—they say that the measure is designed for the protection of the young, but not that it equalises what is currently discriminatory—the Government are being less than fulsome in their commitment to ending discrimination wherever it exists. The Government's attitude to new clause 2 shows that they have drawn a line—the Minister has consistently disappointed me in this regard—and said that they will go no further than they are forced to by the European convention on human rights.
When the hon. Member for Hertsmere can argue as he just has—from the Conservative Front Bench, although not for the Conservatives because the issue will be decided on a free vote—one must ask what is stopping the Government making the change now, subject to the review. As the hon. Gentleman made clear—and as I made clear earlier—the Government have made provision for a statutory defence in clauses 2 to 4, dealing with the abuse of trust and the creation of that new offence.
In Committee, we understood that sentencing provisions and other provisions relating to the new offence concerning abuse of trust would be considered in the review, along with everything else. Merely stating that such a review is to be conducted does not mean that the Government could not propose legislation on matters touched on by new clause 2. In terms of new clause 2, I wish to thank its supporters from all parties—particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), who, at short notice, had the matter drawn to her attention and signed early-day motion 319, along with many other hon. Members who support the principle contained in it.
The original new clause in all its glory, which we discussed in Committee, had the age limit and the "two strikes and you're out" provision, making it applicable only to people not previously charged with a like offence, and was almost entirely identical to the current provisions for heterosexuals. Although we had a free vote, that new clause was defeated in Committee by a phalanx of Government Back Benchers voting against a move to end discrimination. I do not believe that there was good reason for that, and that is why I was keen to table more new clauses that could, in principle, be voted on.
5 pm
I wonder whether Labour Members believe that there should be a vote, even though we may lose it, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere has said that, because the new clause is not the original one that we discussed in Committee, he may not support it. The Bill will be considered by the other place, and the Lords will have an opportunity to say that there should be equality in the statutory defence.
The Government's undertaking to take the matter to a review is insufficient to make me drop the campaign for equality. New clause 4 creates dangers of blackmail and of differential prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for young gay men as against heterosexuals. There is a danger of blackmail for homosexuals, whether for consensual sex above the age of consent or for sex below that age—it will now be 16—which is, rightly, in itself a criminal offence unless there is a defence that is acceptable to the court.
We know from the history of homosexuality and its interaction with the criminal law in this country that there has been much discrimination and blackmail and that lives have been ruined but, at present, a protection exists for young gay men against mischievous or malicious reporting of consensual sex, entrapment and blackmail, because mischievous or malicious persons, who may be young persons acting at the behest of older persons, are constrained from going to the law when they have misled an older person about their age and engaged in sexual activity because they would be committing an offence and be liable to prosecution. Such activity need not be buggery, as gross indecency covers a range of activities that in heterosexual settings are often not thought to be especially sexual but that the police have brought prosecutions on because a policeman considered them grossly indecent between two men.
The Government are right to remove that offence, but the field is being left open for pimps to use the young people whom they exploit to entrap older people, not necessarily to the point of prosecution, but to the point of blackmail. People may swear that they are above 16 or 18. Indeed, by entering certain clubs or bars they imply that they are over 18 or 21, so they have already misled the proprietors and staff. The proprietor is liable, and therefore must deem anyone in the premises to be above the legal drinking age. There is no defence for the older person in that circumstance of being misled or entrapped, and there is no defence against blackmail.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes some thoughtful points about the dangers of blackmail. I put it to him that a countervailing aspect of new clause 2 is that, by decriminalising the offence for the younger party, the hon. Gentleman removes the ability of the younger man to say to the older man, who is urging him into a homosexual relationship, "I mustn't do that, because it is against the law." Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about that aspect?

Dr. Harris: That is a separate point from the one that I wished to make, and the hon. Gentleman might care to ask the Minister to comment. I reiterate that I support new clause 2, because I tabled an amendment along similar lines in Committee. It is of paramount importance to protect the young from any question of committing an offence. Criminalising the victim as a way of preventing him from being victimised is a unique concept, if not in the hon. Gentleman's mind then certainly in British law. The European Commission of Human Rights pointed out that the criminalisation of the young person is inappropriate, whether it is in order to try to deter a criminal from victimising that younger person or because the act in question is viewed as an abomination, which is the origin of the law.
Without new clause 2, homosexuals would not have a defence that they were misled about the age of the younger person, but heterosexuals would. Young females do not generally blackmail their older partners in cases in which they have reasonable cause to believe that the older person is above the age of consent and can prove that to a jury. The hon. Member for Hertsmere believes that the age of consent will soon be equal—although he does not support equalisation himself—and he called for more prosecutions. He drew attention to what he believed was a fall in the number of prosecutions for age of consent offences and said that he believed that that was related to the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals in 1994. There is no evidence to support that conclusion but, fortunately, there have been few prosecutions for consenting sex with a person aged under 16 if it does not involve explicit abuse or exploitation. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to the argument that there had been too few prosecutions. If we are to have more prosecutions, but no statutory defence is available to the hundreds of young gay men who might be brought before the courts after a clampdown and more raids on gay venues—where people pretend to be above the age of 16, and 18—the Bill will mean that many more gay men are prosecuted than heterosexual men. By definition, there will also be more convictions because, once the facts about the ages and the act are established, homosexuals will have no defence, except in Scotland. Therefore, new clause 2 should be welcomed, because it will protect young people and end discrimination. If it is not included in the Bill, we will see increased and discriminatory prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of young gay men compared to young heterosexual men.
If it is acceptable for heterosexuals to have that defence, and acceptable for homosexuals in Scotland—the Government seem to think it acceptable to allow a broader defence in cases of abuse of trust, in circumstances in which it could be argued that the defence should be narrower—why cannot the Minister accept new clause 2? It is not too late, because the Bill could be amended in the other place to give protection, until the review reports, to homosexuals, as exists for heterosexuals, who have been misled about the age of their partners. That would offer protection against blackmail. The onus is on the Government to show why they will not accept such a change to the Bill. Whenever the Government are pressed on a matter that they feel may have some validity but about which they consider that it would not be politically expedient to pronounce, they set up a review without a commitment to legislation. They say that any suggestions for legislation should go into that review. The problem with the review is that the outcome is out of the Government's control; if legislation is introduced, it may be under a different Government with a different view. The general case is that putting a matter to review is not an excuse not to legislate, especially when the discrimination involved has existed for more than 100 years.
The review is welcome. It was announced during consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill, in response to my suggestions and those from hon. Members of all parties, when an amendment was tabled to tackle the discriminatory privacy provision. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Wales, said that a review would be needed to deal with all the issues.
However, there is no timetable for when the review must report to the Government, nor for when the Government will introduce legislation. We have heard


that the review will take a year, and that it will involve the widest possible consultation, which is envisaged to last at least a year. Even if the Government last the maximum five years, we will then be running up to the next general election.
Therefore, I think that the Minister will concede that he envisages no chance of legislation before the next election. I do not doubt the review's ability to come up with non-discriminatory measures, but I have set out why I believe that the Government will not introduce legislation where there is a clear danger that it will worsen the problem of blackmail.
My second concern about the review is that the Minister does not accept that there is gross discrimination in the existing law. I have listened attentively to his contributions, both on the Floor and in Committee. He has said that there are undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the law, and that they relate to the area between heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, he has not said that there is discrimination in the law, other than in one small area. Yet that discrimination exists, in sentencing, statutory defence, and other matters.
Will the review be independent? The review of the abuse of trust provisions contained an interesting paragraph. As I recall, it stated that the review group was minded not to include a particular group in the provisions, but that, after discussions with Ministers, it was recommending that group's inclusion. To me, that seems to mean that Ministers told the Home Office review group that they must recommend that inclusion in the provisions, which I believe had to do with educational institutions.
If this current review group is similar, what is to prevent Ministers from saying that it is not independent in terms of what it can produce? The Government will not want it to make recommendations that they do not find politically expedient. There are no votes in the reform of sexual offences law, and certainly not in measures to eradicate discrimination. That is in part why the words of the hon. Member for Hertsmere were so welcome.
My final concern about the review, as an excuse for not legislating on this matter, is that there is nothing to stop the Minister putting any of the provisions in the Bill forward for consideration. He has said already that sentencing provisions—discussed in Committee and to be discussed again today—and other matters will be subject to the review, even though there has already been a wide review of sexual offences and measures covering registers of sexual offenders for legislation that has been introduced to date.
There is nothing to stop the Minister accepting an amendment such as new clause 2—or the similar but better-worded amendment that I tabled in Committee, with such changes as the Minister considers appropriate—and then putting in into the review. When he responds to the debate, he cannot rely on the review to excuse him from the need to act against the discrimination that exists in the law, or against the danger of blackmail, which is present already and which would be made worse by the provisions of new clause 4. If a suitable case can be found, the European Court of Human Rights will find—yet again—against a United Kingdom Government. I should like the Government to be proactive on homosexual rights and in seeking an end to discrimination, without waiting for the European Court of Human Rights to force action.
5.15 pm
It is vital that the Government should accept that the current law is discriminatory. They made a manifesto commitment to tackle unjustified discrimination wherever it existed. It clearly exists in the criminal law relating to homosexuals. The Government must accept that the law is already discriminatory, and must allow the review fully to end discrimination through its recommendations, without any interference from Ministers. I hope that the Minister will give me that assurance today.
The Minister wants a climate in which there is less tolerance of age-of-consent offences—a wish that is widely shared in the House. However, until there is equality in terms of statutory defences, then a tightening of the law and an increase in prosecutions will mean differential prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of homosexuals. We would be back to where we were before 1967. I commend new clause 2 to the House, and I urge the Minister to respond positively to my points, and to give a commitment that we will not go down the path towards blackmail and discrimination.

Mr. Swayne: I acknowledge that the Minister believes that there are overwhelming reasons why we should accept new clause 4. However, I suspect, as I have suspected for some time, that I live on a different planet from the Minister. I believe that there are overwhelming reasons why new clause 4 should be rejected.
First, it provides every incentive for the active homosexual under the age of 16 to ensure that he avoids any difficulty over the age of consent by selecting as his partner someone who is over 16. It is a monstrous absurdity that someone under 16 should not commit an offence by having consenting sexual relations with another homosexual who is over 16, while someone who selects as his partner someone more equal in age should indeed commit that offence. That offends against any concept of justice.
I am not reassured, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested that I should be, about the age of consent. The age of consent is being abolished by the Bill. There is no age of consent for the young man under 16 so long as he acquires partners who are over 16.

Mr. Richard Allan: Has the hon. Gentleman had any experience of young girls of 15 who go out to seek older partners? They are in exactly the same situation under the current law regarding unlawful sexual intercourse.

Mr. Swayne: I shall answer that point. It is my estimate that it is in the nature of women to seek older men. It has always been the case in sexual relationships that younger women tend to marry and to seek older men. The answer I should make to both the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon is that the two matters are not at all the same thing. There should be no equality between a normal sexual relationship and an unnatural sexual relationship.
The argument that we should accept new clauses 4, 2 and 3 because they provide an equality between the law applying to heterosexual and homosexual relationships is,


as far as I am concerned, an argument for rejecting the new clauses. It is important to maintain within the law a proper discrimination between the two.

Dr. Harris: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is in difficulties. His pronouncement on the sexual preferences of young girls is interesting and I give way to his, perhaps, superior knowledge—he may have researched it. If he thinks that the distinction is one based on unnatural acts, would he criminalise 15-year-old girls if, as part of unlawful sexual intercourse, they engaged in buggery? Perhaps he would. Therefore, he would not restrict the provision to boys—[Interruption] I think that the Minister says that I am encouraging him—but wants to expand it. He is in a weak position.

Mr. Swayne: I will not go down that road because it strikes me as being out of order. I have not researched such matters. My comment was merely an observation of life. That issue is not relevant to the debate, but equality before the law is. The two situations should not be treated equally.
On the blackmailer's charter, I have here a copy of The Pink Paper dated 19 February, which quotes the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. It states:
He told Pink Paper: 'A young man who wanted to get the better of, say, a teacher or social worker could engage in a sexual act in the knowledge that he is immune from prosecution … Then there would be nothing to stop him reporting it to the police.'
I do not know what sort of circles the hon. Gentleman mixes in, but it is absurd to think that teachers and social workers would be game for such a device. We have not descended to that level yet, thankfully. The principle of the point is sound. New clause 4 would provide every incentive for opportunities for blackmail. Consequently, the simple remedy is to reject it.
The Chairman of Ways and Means was wise in his selection of amendments and, in particular, in grouping new clause 4 with new clauses 2 and 3. Those clauses taken together show the absurdity and enormity of the Bill. In new clause 4, we are expected to accept that a young man under the age of 16 having consensual homosexual relations with someone over the age of 16 has the defence that he was under age. The person over that age would have no defence on the ground that he did not know his partner's age. It would give rise to the equally absurd situation that a young man who stands to be prosecuted under the age of 16—namely, the consenting partner of another young man under 16—has no defence on the ground that he did not know that his partner was under 16. He cannot say that he suspected that his partner was over 16 and therefore he would not have committed an offence.
If a defence should be provided—as under new clauses 2 and 3—to the unfortunate who finds that, although he suspected his partner to be over 16, he is not, equally, such a defence should be provided to the under 16-year-old who thought that he was in bed with another under 16-year-old. The mere relation of those facts underlines the absurdity and the unnatural nature of the new clauses. Consequently, I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Allan: Again, there will be a free vote on this issue on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although the majority

of Liberal Democrats support the general thrust of the Bill, which will increase protection for young people in some circumstances by decriminalising them.
As I told the Minister, I have an interest in the review of sexual offences, both in respect of the issues that we are discussing and others. Perhaps he could answer some specific questions. First, has he an idea of the timetable that the Government have in mind for introducing legislation? I understand that there are no commitments, but an idea might be helpful. Secondly, will he categorically confirm that statutory defences in age-of-consent offences will be considered in the review? Thirdly, is the Government's approach, if not on the philosophical ground of equality at least on the rational ground of justice, to seek to equalise statute offences? Can he see any reason why the statutory defences should not be the same across the range of offences, irrespective of sexuality? Some response to those points would help me and my colleagues.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am disappointed that, in the course of his lengthy remarks, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did not find time to address the point that I put to him. I shall take his advice to heart because I am an open-minded chap and can occasionally even learn something from a Liberal Democrat. I urge the Minister to address that point. Does he accept that these provisions would take away from a young man under the age of 16 who wished to protect himself from the approaches of a persuasive older homosexual male the ability to say, "No, I must not do this because it is illegal"? Would that not diminish the protection of boys under 16?

Dr. Harris: To wind up, I want to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). His logic calls for the criminalisation of 14 and 15-year-old girls because criminalising them would make them more able to resist advances. A civilised criminal justice system should not work that way. We should not criminalise victims to add to their protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). He cannot wind up on a new clause that is not before the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made an important point, but one that must be seen in the balance. He argues that a young person under the age of 16 will be deprived of a means of resisting a predatory male if that young person cannot say that he will be subject to the criminal law. However, there is a powerful argument that, if the young person is subject to the criminal law, he will not go to the authorities. A balance has to be struck, and, while I understand my hon. Friend, I am not in favour of exposing the young person to the full rigour of the criminal law for the reason that I gave. On the broader question, I am against the Bill. That said, we have it in front of us and are in the business of trying to make it as good as possible. I hope that he will pardon me if I disagree with him on that point.

Mr. Boateng: We have had a good debate in which the issues have been given the airing that one would expect bearing in mind the way in which these proceedings have been conducted both on the Floor and upstairs.
In response to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), let me say that I have been through the same sort of exercise as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). A balance must be struck. We believe that children and young people are better protected if they are freed from the fear of prosecution if they come forward, having been the victim of a predatory male. It is for the House to determine on a free vote its attitude to the new clause.
I listened at considerable length—as did the whole House, perforce—to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I fear he misunderstands the basis on which new clause 4 has been tabled and the distinction between the nature of new clause 4 and that of new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 4 has been tabled as a Government measure designed better to further and protect the interests of children; it is not designed to promote equality before the law. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the issue of equality before the law is limited in respect of the Bill. We introduced the Bill to achieve equality before the law in relation to the age of consent, and the age of consent alone.
There are a range of other matters on which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have a view. That view will be rooted in their consciences, and their approach to the personal and delicate issues relating to sexual relations. People arrive at different views, depending on their approach, and we are not prescriptive as to what that view should be. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has a clear view that he has expressed throughout proceedings on the Bill, and every amendment and new clause that he has tabled, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House, is designed to promote that view.
We as a Government are absolutely committed both to the equalisation of the age of consent and to giving the House an opportunity to determine that matter. I have made my personal view well known, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: we support the equalisation of the age of consent and do so on the basis of equality before the law, a principle to which I adhere. However, we do not approach the Bill on any basis other than the commitment to the achievement of two separate objectives: the vote on the equalisation of the age of consent, and the measure that we introduce for consideration by the House dealing with the entirely separate issue of abuse of trust.
In respect of the latter measure, I have to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there is a crucial difference between the defence for abuse of trust and the defence for homosexual acts and buggery. In relation to abuse of trust, the older individual is expected to know the age of the person who lies in his trust. In exceptional circumstances, he might not know the age of that individual—for example, if he were a teacher in a further education college which taught students of a broad

age range, and he had had no contact with the student hitherto, it is conceivable that he might not know the age of that student.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Boateng: Let me finish the point. It is our view that, in those circumstances and whatever the age of the older party—older age does not necessarily bring with it a knowledge of the age of the younger party—it would be wrong for him not to have that defence available. He has to make use of that defence and to bring himself within it, but we think it right that the defence should be available to such individuals, regardless of their age, that, in certain circumstances, the older individual would not be expected to know the age of the younger. That is the distinction, so I do not accept that we have got ourselves into the sort of difficulty that the hon. Gentleman describes—

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has made his point and I intend to wind up the debate.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am enjoying it.

Mr. Boateng: I am glad. I have not finished yet, so the hon. Gentleman may enjoy it some more.
In those circumstances, I do not believe that we have misdirected ourselves in relation to that defence. As to new clauses 2 and 3—which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon urged us to accept—there is no limit to those under 25 for the first charge in England and Wales. It is a general defence, and the provisions are very wide and would make prosecution substantially more difficult. That is why we are unable to accept it. The hon. Member for Hertsmere found new clause 3 acceptable in the context of Northern Ireland. That is a matter for him, and hon. Members will make up their own minds. The reasons that we have given for opposing new clauses 2 and 3 stand.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon urged upon us the point about equality. The review will take account of several factors, including that issue. We have deliberately constructed a review process that is about expertise and a range of experiences and views—some of which are disparate. We have done that because we do not wish to circumscribe the basis upon which the review body approaches its task. It will perform its task within the year and produce proposals. It is right that those proposals should be subject to wide debate and discussion—we make absolutely no apology for that.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has latched on to the notion that this is somehow an attempt by the Government to kick the issue into the long grass. That could not be further from the truth. Does he seriously expect us to conduct a rational debate about sexual offences issues—involving deeply personal and sensitive topics, including matters of conscience—without allowing proper, open consultation? That would be quite wrong, and we do not intend to go down that path. I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), any assurances about the outcome, save to say that we have made it clear that the


review must take into account the need to comply with the European convention on human rights and our treaty obligations thereunder. That will inform the outcome of the review's deliberations, the wider debate and, in due course, the House.

Dr. Harris: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I will not give way: the hon. Gentleman has had more than enough time to explore his points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Far too much."] The hon. Gentleman has added enormously to the gaiety of nations, but I do not intend to allow him any more time to speak on this issue.
As for the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), there must be something in the water. I struggled with his contribution, but I was not persuaded by it. There will be a free vote in the House on this matter, and I hope that hon. Members will agree to new clause 4 and oppose new clauses 2 and 3. In light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will not push the matter to a vote.

Dr. Harris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Boateng: I have finished.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 64.

Division No. 78]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Casale, Roger


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Caton, Martin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cawsey, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clappison, James


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Norman
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cox, Tom


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Brake, Tom



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Curry, Rt Hon David


Buck, Ms Karen
Dafis, Cynog


Burstow, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Butler, Mrs Christine
Darvill, Keith


Caborn, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Canavan, Dennis
Dean, Mrs Janet





Dismore, Andrew
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Linton, Martin


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Fearn, Ronnie
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonnell, John


Follett, Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
McNulty, Tony


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Gardiner, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McWalter, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
McWilliam, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Harris, Dr Evan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mountford, Kali


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hepburn, Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hill, Keith
Olner, Bill


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Hope, Phil
Perham, Ms Linda


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jamieson, David
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Rendel, David 



Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Roy, Frank


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Ruane, Chris


Kidney, David
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Sanders, Adrian


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian






Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Timms, Stephen


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tipping, Paddy


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)





NOES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Lidington, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cann, Jamie
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



Page, Richard


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Pollard, Kerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Powell, Sir Raymond



Randall, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Cran, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Rogers, Allan


Day, Stephen
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Evans, Nigel
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Faber, David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Syms, Robert


Fraser, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Garnier, Edward
Tredinnick, David


Gill, Christopher
Trend, Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Viggers, Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Waterson, Nigel


Greenway, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Grieve, Dominic
Wilkinson, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hammond, Philip
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hawkins, Nick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Desmond Swayne and Dr. Julian Lewis.


Lansley, Andrew



Letwin, Oliver

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about access to the Palace of Westminster, given the new arrangements with the Bridge street underpass. When the Division

was called, I was in my office in Norman Shaw North, as were many other hon. Members. We sought to get here in plenty of time for the Division. We tried to cross the road by the traffic lights, which is the quickest route. I understand that, traditionally, we are supposed to be allowed to access the Palace "without let or hindrance", but we had to wait a considerable time for the lights to change. Had we accessed the Palace elsewhere, that old-fashioned courtesy would have been extended to us. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would look into the matter not only on my behalf, but on behalf of other hon. Members whose offices are far afield.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall instruct the authorities of the House to look into the matter, before another Division is called.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It really is difficult to cross Bridge street if one does not catch the lights. It is all right for certain hon. Members to say that there is no problem, but it is purely a matter of coincidence and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is quite right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members should have access from other parts of the parliamentary estate to get to Divisions unimpeded. The matter will be looked into. It may be worth noting that I used my discretion and allowed an extra minute before the Doors were closed because it was the first Division of the evening.

Clause 2

ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
The amendment would raise the maximum penalty for the new offence of abuse of trust from two to five years. It has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and the hon. Member who deputises for the Opposition on these matters, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), so it enjoys the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The amendment follows a detailed discussion in Committee on a similar amendment. We undertook to consider the position further in the light of the cogent arguments made then.
Hon. Members will recall that, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made two persuasive interventions to raise the issue of penalties. It is right that his name should be mentioned in relation to this amendment.
We have looked at the amendment tabled in Committee and agree with the views that hon. Members expressed then that the amendment should be made. It may be helpful to explain briefly why we feel that that is so. First, we agree that analogy with the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 is flawed. My view, for what it is worth, is that the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse is too low. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. The Opposition spokesman on these matters certainly does.
As we said in Committee, we expect the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse to be sorted out as part of the sexual offences review. However, as we believe that it is too low, we accept that it should not determine the level of penalty for the new offence. Given that we are considering a new offence, it is right to take this opportunity to set that penalty at an appropriate level. We must not be unduly influenced by the inappropriate level of penalty that applies in relation to unlawful sexual intercourse. Thus, we are considering the matter on its merits rather than on the basis of an analogy with what we regard to be a flawed penalty.
There is merit in a maximum penalty of five years for the new offence of abuse of trust. We believe that there could be cases, even of 16 or 17-year-olds with ostensibly consensual sexual relations, where a penalty of five years could be properly justified. For example, if someone in a position of trust in a detention setting had sex with a 16-year-old detainee, that would be a very serious offence, which would merit a maximum penalty of five years.
It is important for hon. Members to remember that we are discussing a maximum penalty, which would be used only rarely. Nevertheless, it is right that the courts should have it at their disposal to deal with the most serious cases of abuse. I hope that that argument will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
6 pm
It is important to view the circumstances where abuses of trust might stretch across a spectrum. At one end, there are circumstances—to which I have referred—where someone is held in detention and the maximum penalty might be appropriate. At the other, it is difficult to agree that, for example, teachers would merit such a penalty for consensual relations with a 16 or 17-year-old student where the teacher was, say, 23. In that instance, the lower end of the spectrum might be the most appropriate.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman talks about the spectrum in which abuse of trust can take place. I wonder whether he could tell the House—I do not know the answer; he may have given it in the past—why the Government have decided not to extend the penalties and obligations that flow from the clause to those who are in loco parentis within the context of the domestic home?

Mr. Boateng: We have discussed that issue on the Floor of the House and Upstairs. I shared then with the House, and am happy to share now, the principles on which we arrived at our decisions in relation to abuse of trust. The most relevant one in terms of the situation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes is the availability of countervailing adult influences. Even though an au pair, for example, might be in a position where she could exercise undue influence due to a position of trust within the household, other adult influences would be brought to bear on the life of the young person that would countervail against the influence of the au pair who found herself in loco parentis.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Boateng: That would be the principle there.
Where the line had to be drawn, and it is a matter of judgment in that domestic setting—a private home—it was properly drawn in such a way as to exclude the

person acting as a nanny or an au pair, but the maximum penalty needs to reflect the requirement for sentences to express society' s condemnation of the most serious cases within that broad spectrum. It needs to be seen as a maximum, not as the norm. For those reasons, we share the view of members on both sides of the Committee who put forward, and supported, the proposition that we should seek a higher maximum penalty.
For that reason, we hope that the House will accept without Division the proposed increase in the maximum penalty from two to five years.

Mr. Clappison: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's contribution. One of our amendments in Committee first proposed the increase in the maximum sentence for breach of trust from two years to five years. We thought then that we supported it with a strong and persuasive argument. We followed that up by tabling the amendment for Report.
We are pleased that the Home Secretary has added his name to our amendment because we think that it does much to improve the Bill. Certainly, it is a Bill that could be much improved, and in other respects besides the maximum penalty.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an acute point in his intervention on the Minister about the extent of the coverage of the concept of the position of trust. We are far from convinced by the doctrine that the Minister has put forward this evening and the others that he has put forward, which are slightly different, in trying to justify the Government's view of the position of trust.
The Minister referred to the availability of countervailing adult influences as the reason why the Government fixed the line for the position of trust where they did, but, if they really believed in that doctrine, they would have taken many teachers out of the ambit of the clause because, when a child is at school, there are many countervailing influences besides the teachers: other teachers, parents, other adults whom the children will know—

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Clappison: I shall give way to the Minister—although he did not do me the courtesy of giving way to me earlier—because I know that the Government's proposal has no justification at all.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is most kind, but he knows that there are four principles, to which we have returned again and again: the individual is particularly vulnerable; the location makes the individual particularly vulnerable; the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence—that was the one to which I referred the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—and the special influence of an adult where the relationship is in loco parentis.
What is so significant about a teacher's role—one does not want to labour the point—is that a teacher is specifically in loco parentis. That stands at the heart of the relationship between a teacher and a pupil. In due course, we shall come to the issue of part-time teachers,


but there the other prevailing principle comes into play: the existence of a countervailing influence because of the part-time nature of the teacher 's employment.

Mr. Clappison: The longer the Minister's intervention went on—it went on for a little while—the more confused he became. He has clearly shifted his ground from the original point that he made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, when he referred to the absence of countervailing influences. My right hon. and learned Friend raised the question of in loco parentis. The Minister then said that the key principle is the absence of countervailing adult influences, but when I put the point to the Minister that, in the case of teachers, there were other influences, he returned to in loco parentis, so the Minister uses a bit of a circular argument.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: rose—

Mr. Clappison: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, so that the House understands the argument that we are advancing, let me say that we feel strongly that protection should be given where it is needed. The concept of a position of trust should run much wider than the Government have allowed it to run in the Bill.

Mrs. Winterton: While supporting what my hon. Friend has said, may I refer to the intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the explanation of not using in loco parentis? May I give the example that is frequently heard about: the uncle, cousin or member of the family who abuses a child? The child does not tell because that person is a member of the family, yet such an offence would not be caught by the Bill. That is an important point. There are known cases—we all know about them. It is disturbing.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely correct point. Some people in a higher position of trust may be outside the scope of the Bill, compared with some people who are inside it. Detailed examination of the Bill has revealed example after example of potential loopholes and inconsistencies not just as between people who fulfil one of the four conditions in the Bill and people in entirely different sectors, but people within the conditions in some ways. We heard from the Minister in Committee that, for some purposes, in some circumstances, supply teachers would not be caught by the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Mr. Clappison: The Minister shakes his head, but he is on record in the Hansard of the Committee proceedings as saying that, in some circumstances, supply teachers would not be caught by the Bill. However, in the amendment, which originally came from Conservative Members, we are dealing with an increase in the maximum sentence. On that, we agree with what the Minister says.
We made those arguments first. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the argument that we advanced in Committee that the maximum sentence for such an

offence should be judged on its merits, not by reference to other sentences that were perhaps not entirely applicable, particularly the one on unlawful sexual intercourse, which I note the Minister now accepts is too low a maximum sentence, in his personal view. [Interruption.] Well, the Minister expressed his personal view earlier that the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse was too low. I think that he expressed something similar in Committee and in correspondence. We have been making our case on that for some considerable time, not least in view of the fact that the maximum sentence for indecent assault is now 10 years.
We advanced the same argument during the passage of the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is a shame that the Government did not accept the amendment that we tabled then, which proposed the increasing of the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse. If they had accepted it, we should not be in our present anomalous position. In any event, we feel that five years is more appropriate than the two-year maximum that the Government envisaged before hearing our arguments.
I agree with the Minister that the fact that we have asked for a higher maximum—and the Government now accept that there should be one—does not mean that such a sentence should be imposed in every case of a breach of trust, in which an older person in a position of trust engages in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old. We are talking about a maximum. That maximum, however, must cater for every type of case, including the very worst type.
The Minister cited circumstances in which a maximum sentence of five years, or approaching that length, would be appropriate, but there may well be many others. There may be many cases involving older men, perhaps in their 30s or 40s, who are in a position of substantial authority over younger people. Such a man might lead a youngster into sexual experiences—sexual experimentation—for his own gratification, with no regard for the welfare of the youngster, and possibly with permanent consequences for that youngster. There will be such cases, in which people are convicted of such offences in such circumstances, and, when those circumstances apply and when there is a gross breach of trust with permanent consequences for the youngster involved, a much longer sentence than two years is called for. That was manifestly too low a starting point.
We think that the proposed sentence represents a victory for common sense, and hope that it will continue to be regarded as the maximum, even when the review of sexual offences in general takes place. A five-year maximum will give stronger protection to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, and, as I said at the outset, it would be churlish of us not to welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted our arguments.

Mr. Allan: We will not oppose the change. The Minister gave welcome assurances in describing the broad spectrum of possible sentences, and, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Home Secretary wrote:
I must stress that this would be a maximum penalty for use in the most extreme cases but we accept there could be rare circumstances where it could be justified.


We can envisage those circumstances. The Minister referred to detention centres, but we are also thinking of residential institutions, especially institutions for those with disabilities, in which such a maximum sentence could be justified.
I was pleased to hear the Minister revert to Latin in describing "in loco parentis" as an important concept. In Committee, when I expressed concern about the definition of in loco parentis in regard to the offences that we are discussing, I was told off for being old fashioned: the Government were trying to move forward and establish clear definitions, suggesting, for instance, the definition of a person
regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of such persons
as a pithy replacement for "in loco parentis".
Our main wish is to establish that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual offences. I hope that, when he sums up the debate, the Minister will mention indecent assault, and will tell us that the review of sexual offences will examine the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with non-consensual offences such as indecent assault, as opposed to the offences introduced by the Bill. We feel that, in some of the circumstances that we are discussing, the coercive element in a relationship could be used as a ground to argue that consent had been overridden. In such circumstances, rather than prosecuting on the basis of an offence involving a consensual act—as provided for in the Bill—the authorities could override the consent, demonstrate that to the court and thereby act on the basis of the more serious offence of indecent assault, or similar sexual offences, on the ground that no consent had been given. We hope that the introduction of additional measures will not make us lose the will to demonstrate the lack of consent, and fall back on an offence that may be easier to prove.
6.15 pm
I am pleased that the Minister has said that the matter will be for the discretion of the court. As he will know, we are opposed to mandatory sentences in general, but, in regard to sexual offences, especially the offence that we are discussing, we believe that, when issues of consent are involved and a wide range of possible circumstances exists, it is important to leave the determination of the appropriate sentences to skilled judges, advised by equally skilful lawyers.
We hope that the review will bear fruit in respect of the critical issue of non-consensual indecent assault, as opposed to consensual offences, in due course, but believe that this may be the most appropriate sentence for the extreme and rare circumstances described by the Home Secretary when, in the near future, the Bill comes into force.

Mr. Hogg: I want to make two points. The first relates to my intervention on the Minister's speech; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for what she said in my support.
I feel that there are circumstances involving abuse of trust that the Bill simply does not address. I am talking about the concept of in loco parentis. The father, the uncle and the person who employs the au pair are just three examples. I well understand why many would think that such people should be subject to the penalties prescribed

in clause 2 just as much as those who exercise some other function in the prescribed institutions. The Minister may be right, but I hope that he will think again. The Bill will go to the other place, and, in any event, there is to be a review of sexual law. We should ask whether those exercising the function in loco parentis should be subject to the law that we are now applying to the groups specified in clause 2.
Let me raise a different point, which comes from the opposite direction. Many abuses of trust are clearly very grave. It is serious, and a real abuse, when an older man takes advantage of either a man or a woman in a school, prison or other prescribed institution. Quite different circumstances can arise when there is a close similarity in age between the person who is under 18 and the person who is over 18. I have in mind, for instance, a young teacher who might form a relationship with a pupil of, say, 17. That teacher could be found guilty of a serious criminal offence attracting a sentence of up to five years. It is true that we would not expect the courts to subject that person to such a penalty, but I am nevertheless uneasy about the position that we are creating.
Let me make a suggestion to the Minister. He may care to reflect on it before the Bill goes to the other place, where it can be amended further. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to the statutory defence applying to those under 24. The Minister might well wish to consider whether, when there is an age similarity—let us take up to 24 as an example—the consent of, say, the Attorney-General should be obtained before there can be a prosecution. There is a risk of injustice, and I am reluctant to leave the matter to the good sense of the prosecuting authorities. I hope that the Minister will contemplate a specific approach to deal with cases that will otherwise fall within the prescribed categories, involving people whose ages are close. I would be greatly reassured if he would do so, bearing in mind the possibility of making the consent of the Attorney-General a condition of prosecution.

Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to a short but important debate. Let me deal first with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
I accept that we should address relationships that are caught under the umbrella of abuse of trust—relationships that might develop between a 24-year-old teacher and a pupil of 17. Under the Bill as drafted, such a relationship would constitute a criminal offence. Although it is a matter of judgment, I believe that such relationships should be caught by the Bill and subject to the criminal law.
On balance, as a matter of public policy, such relationships should be discouraged. Hon. Members will have a view on relationships between teachers and pupils, and may have experience of the impact on school discipline and the lives of young people if such a relationship develops. Such relationships can be highly disruptive, both of young lives and to school discipline. It is therefore right that such relationships should fall within the ambit of the criminal law.
Such relationships are, however, at one end of the spectrum that we have debated today. Progress on the matter may entail determining how codes of practice,


which are envisaged as part of the mechanism created by the Bill, and guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service might provide means of ensuring that only cases that should properly be prosecuted are prosecuted. There should therefore be a combination of a code of practice—to modify and regulate conduct in the circumstances that we have discussed—and guidelines for those who bring prosecutions to clarify the basis on which prosecutions should be brought.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a relatively sympathetic reply to my suggestion. Although he may not be going the whole way, he will doubtless think further about the suggestion. However, if we are going to go down the road of codes of practice—which is a course that Governments adopt in dealing with the type of circumstances we are debating—does he accept that it is desirable that the code of practice should take the form of a statutory instrument, so that the House can debate the code and express our views on it?

Mr. Boateng: The Government have already, in Committee, tabled a draft code of practice for consideration. Undoubtedly, in our deliberations in the House, we shall return to that draft—which will be available also to the other place, so that it might inform debates there.
I am reluctant to go down the path suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in creating a requirement to obtain the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution. However, I accept the thrust of the argument underpinning the suggestion—that one should apply the criminal law only in circumstances in which doing so is clearly justified. We have made it clear that there would have to be consultation and discussion with teachers' associations and unions in developing a code of practice, to ensure that we get it right.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the wider issue of uncles, aunts and "dads"—who are intermittently involved in domestic life but are not the natural father and are perhaps one of a succession of man friends. Hon. Members will know that some of the most serious cases of child abuse occur in that type of family context—which, as it involves "consensual relations" and is not subject to the law of incest, currently falls outside the criminal law. There is therefore a very strong feeling—which was expressed on both sides of the Committee—that we have to re-examine the law of incest.
Incest is a very complex matter, and we shall have to take advice on dealing with it. The law of incest has developed to protect the gene pool rather than to protect children. Although the Government believe that the time has come to re-examine the law of incest, we do not think of the Bill as a vehicle for changing it. However, we shall certainly expect the sexual offences review to consider the matter, to take evidence on it and to make suggestions on how Parliament might properly address that very real issue.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman also address the issue—not necessarily now, but in the review—of how to deal with cases involving the natural father? Although it is true that the law of incest may apply in the

circumstances that he mentioned, sexual activity falling short of normal sexual intercourse and involving the father is not covered by clause 2. It is difficult to say why it should not be so covered.

Mr. Boateng: Sexual activity between the natural father and his son also does not constitute incest—precisely because it is not linked to the possibility of procreation and consequent pollution of the gene pool. It is clearly a mischief that should properly be remedied. We shall expect the sexual offences review to do so.

Mrs. Gorman: Surely society's attitude towards incest long predates any concept of gene pools? Is not that attitude part of the structure, and taboos, on which our society is built? Is that not why it is viewed with such horror in our society?

Mr. Boateng: I was not suggesting for one moment that it should not be viewed with horror. I was merely pointing out what I thought was the generally accepted view, that the taboo developed because it was thought to be genetically undesirable to make connection with one's own relative.

Mr. Bercow: What about moral concerns?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, the moral concerns arise from concerns to preserve, so far as possible, the health of the gene pool. Although this is not the time to deal with that interesting byway, the sexual offences review will undoubtedly wish to deal with it. Our modern concern is with child abuse, and there is no doubt that child abuse has flourished in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Congleton.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made, as ever, some interesting and important points. He did so with great succinctness and brevity, in stark contrast to some of his fellow Liberal Democrat Members, who are sadly and inexplicably absent from the Chamber. The Government will ensure that the code of practice and the review take on board the specific circumstances and instances that he outlined in his speech. Those matters will have to fall within the ambit of the review's deliberations.
I should tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that, although I am only too pleased to see that it is possible to arrive at some bipartisan—or tripartisan—unanimity on the issue, I am sure that he will wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who, sadly, is not able to participate in today's debate. In the debate on Second Reading, my hon. Friend intervened in my speech no fewer than twice, precisely to gain from me the assurance that I gave that we would return to the issue of increasing the maximum sentence both in Committee and on Report. Therefore, although I am happy to see the extent to which it is possible to make common cause on the matter, I should say that the issue was raised first by my hon. Friend. He deserves credit for that, even in his absence.
On that basis, I hope that it will be possible for the House to approve the amendment without a Division.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

MEANING OF "POSITION OF TRUST"

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 22, after 'full time', insert 'or part time'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.

Mr. Clappison: This important issue arose in Committee. As the House will have gathered, we are concerned that the Bill does not give sufficient protection to 16 and 17-year-olds and is not drawn wide enough in respect of adults who should be in a position of trust. We should have liked additional protection for children under 16, but that has not proved possible.

Mr. Hogg: I am a little anxious about the amendment, which seems to extend to evening classes, or even Sunday schools. It is not clear to me why a relationship in an evening class between an instructor and a student should give rise to a criminal offence.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point.
The amendment would remedy a problem in the Bill. After listening to our arguments, the Government have accepted that there is a problem. As I said in the previous debate, we have concerns about which teachers are covered by the provisions. The Minister has admitted that, in some circumstances, supply teachers are not covered. The amendment is designed to deal with what many would regard as another loophole, which we raised in Committee, affecting students who are registered as being in full-time education at one establishment, but who attend a second establishment as part of their course.
We have asked whether such a student would be protected against an abuse of trust by a teacher or lecturer who worked at the second establishment and was involved in teaching, and caring for, them. To be fair, the Minister agreed to consider the issue after he heard our arguments in Committee. I understand that he accepts the force of those arguments and has tabled Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8 to cater for the situation.
We welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense on this important point. It is common for many 16 and 17-year-olds to attend a second establishment as part of their course. Before the amendments, it was hard to see how the Bill would cover a teacher at a second establishment.
A substantial number of A-level students in my constituency attend the local secondary school for two of their A-levels, but go to a local college of further education for another one. I was surprised to learn that there was uncertainty as to whether they would be covered by the Bill at the second establishment. If they formed a relationship with a teacher at the first establishment, the teacher would be in breach of trust because he would be in a position of trust, but the Bill would not cover a teacher or lecturer at the college of further education who formed a relationship with them. That had to be explored. I am pleased that the Government are seeking to put the situation right and are closing one of the loopholes in the

Bill. I regret that many other loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies remain and cannot be put right—but at least this one can.

Mr. Allan: In Committee, I was also testing the extent to which those involved in education would be covered by the Bill, but I came at the issue from an angle different from that of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), because I felt that the provisions were drawn too widely. We tested whether issues such as residence or direct tuition should be requirements. We considered the difficult in loco parentis argument. There seems to be no strict definition of in loco parentis. I notice that, in becoming more modern, the Home Secretary has skipped a few centuries and gone to mediaeval French, with autrefois acquit as his latest legal jargon. In loco parentis is an important concept that requires further testing.
There are still problems with the amendments. We do not support the extension proposed by the hon. Member for Hertsmere into part-time education, but we believe that there are problems with the Government's definition of full-time education, in particular the number of hours required in the definition of full-time study. A test based on the number of hours that a pupil spends at school may mean that the right people are not always caught, in terms of natural justice. For example, a pupil who spent 20 hours a week in an institution, being taught for all that time by the same teacher, would not be covered because they would not be a full-time pupil; but one who spent 30 hours a week at the institution would be covered even if they had no direct contact in school with the teacher concerned. If one of the tests is the amount of influence that the person in a position of trust is deemed to have, judging the issue on the number of hours that the pupil spends in the institution gives rise to inconsistencies.
The Government amendments are sensible in that they are at least logically consistent. The Committee debates worked well on the issue. It was instructive for Opposition Members to see the Minister doing his best to argue manfully around the issue of people being part time at an FE college. The ground beneath him turned to quicksand as it became apparent that a pupil who spent Monday to Thursday at a school and spent Friday at an FE college was not covered. That is common in my constituency. The Government amendments are consistent and sensible in that respect.
I hope that the Conservatives will not press their amendment to a vote, because it would extend the provisions wider than we would like. We accept that the Government are sensibly trying to be consistent, but we hope that there will be further tests in another place of what sort of relationship between a teacher and pupil would be regarded as a sufficiently serious breach of trust for an otherwise consensual sexual relationship to be criminalised.

Mr. Boateng: The debate is a classic example of the justification of considering matters in Committee and giving them the care and attention that the Committee gave to the clause. The probing and discussion in Committee was of enormous assistance in teasing out the necessary amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. I owe a debt of gratitude to all who contributed.
Even in that spirit of generosity, I am afraid that we are not able to accept amendment No. 4, moved by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). We cannot do so


because we take the view—illustrated by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—that that would capture within the ambit of the Bill the evening classes which, in our view, simply do not give rise to a relationship the nature of which ought to occasion the degree of trust which, if breached, should lead to a criminal sanction.
I return to the four broad criteria that we have applied in the Bill: particular vulnerability; location; the special influence of the adult, the relationship being in loco parentis; and the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence. In those circumstances, part-time education does not fall within those principles in a way that justifies the amendment.
The Government amendments would correct the anomaly in the Bill that was teased out in Committee. They bring into the scope of the offence those educational institutions providing education to full-time pupils or students who are registered or enrolled at a different institution, but receive part of their education at a second establishment. It is important that that be made clear. Education must be covered by the offence because the relationships of trust are particularly strong. That arises from the parent entrusting a child to the care of the school or college.
There may be additional factors that have the effect of making trust a significant factor whose breach ought properly to be penalised by the criminal law. However, it is right to recognise that that ought not to extend to part-time education. For that reason, we are unable to accept the Opposition amendment. The Government amendments perfect the clause in a way that I hope will cause them to find favour, without a division, in the House. On that basis, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that we have avoided the danger of making evening classes subject to the regime in the Bill. However, I am a little troubled by the definition of "full-time education" and I suspect that the Minister may wish to reflect further on it, with a view to making changes in the other place.
The reason for my concern follows the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). There are a number of courses in colleges of further education where the education provided is for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week. In one sense, that is not full time. In another sense, it creates the kind of relationship to which we wish to attach the obligations and criminal penalties in the Bill. I would be concerned whether higher education courses for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week meet the statutory definition in the Bill of full-time education. I rather doubt that they would, but that is a matter for reflection. If the Minister agrees, he may care to consider tabling amendments in another place.

Mr. Boateng: We can and will reflect on that, and I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as our reflection develops apace, both here and in another place. We want to get it right, and we all agree that a category and class of young people needs protection. We want to make sure that legislation is as successful in achieving that objective as possible. Young people in receipt of education fall into an area of vulnerability that does, in my view, require protection.
We have to determine how best to define and identify that education, and that class or grouping of young people. We will reflect on how best to do that. At present, we have arrived at a definition and a balance that suits our purpose, and that will receive widespread support, not only from the general public—and parents in particular, who have concerns in this area—but from the teaching profession. Teachers will recognise that this measure must be embraced and welcomed—not least when it is underpinned by the codes of practice and guidance that we intend to issue to the Crown Prosecution Service—and should not cause apprehension.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a worthwhile debate, as was the earlier debate in Committee. We wanted to explore the issue that was identified in Committee; we thought that there ought to be additional coverage in terms of the position of trust. It would be churlish not to welcome the fact that the Government have conceded the force of our argument, and have accepted the need for clarification. The position of trust has been extended to other people to whom many members of the public would feel it ought to be extended. In the light of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'in an' and insert 'at an educational'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 23, leave out 'in' and insert 'at'.
No. 8, in page 3, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section a person receives full—time education at an educational institution if—

(a) he is registered or otherwise enrolled as a full—time pupil or student at the institution; or
(b) he receives education at the institution under arrangements with another educational institution at which he is so registered or otherwise enrolled.'—[Mr. Boateng.]

Title

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Amendment made: No. 9, in line 1, after 'which' insert
', and to make provision with respect to the circumstances in which,'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Mrs. Gorman: I have sat through many of the debates on this subject from 1994 through to today. I have not spoken at all on the Bill because I have been keen to understand the reasoning behind it. The Government have made a great issue of equality before the law, and they have said persistently that this is not a matter of moral judgment, but of making the law as it applies to 16-year-old girls apply to boys—the implication being that the sexual activity in those two sexes is similar. Of course, we all know that it is not, and that there are different consequences from that activity.
What we are debating tonight is a removal of protection from some of our citizens. By changing the law, we are bringing younger people into a position of risk from


which the law has previously protected them. No one would pretend that any law passed in this House will prevent people from doing things that they are determined to do, but the laws that we create give a strong signal as to the way in which we hope people might behave—or, at least, they reflect the behaviour that is commonly held to be appropriate within society.
There is no doubt that the great majority of people in this country, if polled, would not take the Government's position or that of the majority in the Lobby tonight. They believe that the current legislation gives some protection—and they are right.
Even when homosexual activity between males aged 16 to 18 was illegal, in 1994, there were 300 cases of such young men with AIDS. Perhaps some of them have died. If we relax the law, it is reasonable to suppose that the number will increase. I cannot think of a law that we would change in almost any other context that would lead to an increase in a dangerous disease or practice. The new Labour party, which is so sanctimonious about smoking and diseases that are caused by people's behaviour, which it seeks to correct, would never approve of that.
The Government must have some other motivation. The Government are usually fairly canny in identifying issues that are popular with the public and exploiting them. All political parties do that to some extent. Knowing, as they must, that the great majority of people outside the Metropolitan area would not approve of the proposed alteration in the law, it is interesting to speculate as to why the Government have made such an issue of this matter.
Clearly, there is a great deal of support for the change among what might be called the chattering classes, and certainly in the media. Nobody denies that there is a disproportionate number of homosexuals in those communities. In the run-up to the general election—not only the immediate run-up, but the period since 1994—there would have been every good reason for the Labour party to want to come to terms with those people. It certainly would have received a lot of pressure from them. I believe that the Government have to some extent played up to that powerful and influential group in our society.
What is the role of the House? Surely we are here to reflect, by and large, the views of the people whom we represent; to try to express their concerns, especially when there are proposals to change the law in a way that is likely to affect them and their families; and, if possible, to remedy their grievances rather than adding to them. I put it to the House that the Bill does exactly the opposite, and that we are seeking to impose a minority view on the great mass of people with families or with concern for the care of 16-year-old young men—or boys, as I prefer to call them—and going against the will of the people. For that reason alone, I want to vote against the Bill.
We are continually told that homosexuality is a normal activity and way of life but, having looked through the debates since 1994, I have found not a single instance of an hon. Member declaring openly that that is the position that he or she is coming from. I have heard hon. Members saying that they are Christians or that they are family people with sons but that they support the change—I even heard a Labour Member saying that he was a Christian, a Catholic and a father of sons but still supported the change—but no one has opened his mouth to say that he is a homosexual and can tell us the truth about the subject.
There has been covert support for the Bill in some quarters that does less than justice either to the Government's claim that homosexuality is a natural and

normal part of life for certain sections of the community, or to the electorate. It is significant that the Government and their supporters have not come clean with the electorate. There is an element of deceit in the way in which the legislation has been presented to the House.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has the hon. Lady been asleep for the past two years? The European Court of Human Rights has ordered us to change our law. We have to do it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman says that it is rubbish, but unfortunately life is life. We have to change the law and we are doing it. There is no hidden agenda.

Mr. Winterton: Of course there is.

Mr. Bermingham: Rubbish, Winterton, you really are a silly man.

Mrs. Gorman: I am as aware as the hon. Gentleman that there has been a debate on the issue from that perspective, and to some extent he has made a contribution to that; but that does not alter the fact that we are debating what will be domestic legislation, and we have not been entirely open and clear with the public about the motivation behind it.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the European Court of Human Rights might require us to change the law, that does not mean that the change is a good one? The change could be completely wrong, so it is a shame that people of principle do not stand up and say so. Frankly, I am sick to death of hearing about the European Court.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend knows my views on that, and I entirely agree with everything that she says.
On the "Today" programme on 22 February, a certain gentleman named Derek Bodell, who apparently runs something called the National AIDS Trust, complained that the budget for AIDS, at £52 million, was not enough to deal with the problem; that it cost £15,000 a year to treat an AIDS patient; that 1,500 homosexual men develop AIDS every year; and that we are too complacent about the issue. He and I might not share the same form or degree of complacency. He ended his remarks by saying that there is a worrying increase in AIDS among younger men. The behaviour of homosexual men must surely affect those figures.

Mr. Borrow: Several times, Conservative Members have adduced AIDS as a reason for not reducing the age of consent. All the bodies concerned with the sexual health of young gay men are unanimous in the view that the age of consent at 18 rather than 16 is a factor in increasing the number of HIV cases among young gay men and that a reduction to 16 will assist in giving proper sexual health education to 16 to 18-year-olds.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That cannot be right.

Mr. Borrow: Conservative Members may not like the facts, but their comments, made in complete ignorance of them, show that they have no arguments.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is saying that more people will come forward if their activity is


legalised, but in 1994—the latest year for which I happen to have figures—300 16 to 18-year-olds with AIDS came forward. If one is that ill, one will automatically go to the doctor's surgery and get treatment for the problem. One would not simply stay at home and die in bed. That is an absurd suggestion.

Mr. Winterton: To assist my hon. Friend and to counter the intervention from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), I can tell her that, when I served as a member of the Social Services Select Committee and we undertook an inquiry into AIDS, it was abundantly clear from the evidence that we received from many sources that the main causes of it were intravenous drug abuse and active homosexual sex. The case that my hon. Friend makes is genuine and right, and the Bill will be damaging and encourage an increase in the incidence of AIDS.

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue is one of health. What adults do in the privacy of their homes is their business, but the Bill will affect very young people. The Government have sought to mollify people who have expressed concern by amending their original proposals, prompted by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), to protect people from certain types of predation. We hope that those people are protected, but the fact that we have to add such provisions to the Bill tells us that it is flawed.
The change in the law is not needed. There were almost no prosecutions of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 and, therefore, we do not need legislation that will send a signal that certain activities are acceptable and, in the view of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), safe. They are not.
The Government's purpose is not the high and mighty one of creating equality for young people. I do not believe that for a moment. They are giving a signal to a very small, but very powerful element in our society—the media—that the Government are open-minded about those activities, which are widespread in the media. The Government want to say that they condone those activities to the extent that young people aged 16 should be able to engage in such activities, unless they happen to need special protection. I have been a teacher and I know that young people of that age are immature emotionally and vulnerable. I shall not support the Bill.
I hope that the electorate, in so far as they follow what goes on in the House, will have noted from which quarter the pressure for the Bill has come. It is their 16-year-old sons who will be put in situations as depicted on certain television programmes, which have already been mentioned, on Channel 4 recently. There is active predation on young people by people who are not in a position of care and, in such cases, the young people will not be protected by the Bill.

Dr. Harris: It is the same for girls.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman has made that point time and again. It is not the same for girls. We are talking about activities that can be physically dangerous, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a medical doctor, well knows, and have led to the development of AIDS.
That disease was almost unknown before the liberalisation of the laws on homosexuality. I hope that the public will remember that it was the Labour party which removed the protection from their young sons. When it comes to deciding which party is suitable to protect youngsters, I hope that people will remember this debate and which party forced the Bill through the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) should try to turn the issue into a party political one. When the Division records have been examined, her claim will be found to be absurd, because Members from all parties are found on both sides of the argument. Members from her party, my party and the Labour party will be found in each Lobby. To start attributing absurd motives to those who support the Bill is equally foolish. I would not do so to her. People support the Bill for a variety of motives, which they have declared openly and I shall give my views in a moment. I have never found it fruitful in politics to discuss legislation on the basis of the motives of those supporting it or opposing it: it is better to consider what its effects will be. That is what the House has sought to do in this case.
The Government have rightly brought back to the House a matter on which the House made a decision in the last Session. The House of Lords required us to think again and it is proper for the Government to bring it back to us so that we can have a free vote. It was also right that the Government brought back to us something else on which the House expressed strong views—although not majority views as it turned out—which was the need to build into the legislation provisions dealing with abuses of trust. The legislation is much better for containing those provisions. I supported the original amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and it is good that we have managed to incorporate those principles into the Bill.
Anomalies and difficulties remain, but the first part of the Bill will remove an indefensible anomaly—that conduct involving people in the age group from 16 to 18 could be the subject of criminal proceedings for male homosexuals but not for heterosexuals or female homosexuals. My view of that point has nothing to do with my opinions as to the merits of such conduct. I am not entitled to write my views into law, unless there is an overriding principle of public protection involved. That has not been demonstrated. Indeed, the evidence is that it is better, if one believes that serious health dangers are at stake, that young people in that age group should feel no discouragement from taking medical advice at the time when they first might be drawn into such conduct. On public safety grounds, there is a strong case for the provisions in the first part of the Bill.
Several anomalies were explored in Committee; both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) have done a lot of work on the Bill. The remaining anomalies will have to be considered carefully in the review that the Government will undertake, including the abuse of trust issue, where teachers might be involved in potential charges, and why some categories of people, who might have closer contact with children than many teachers, are not included. We will have to revisit the subject, because the Bill cannot dot all the i's


and cross all the t's. It was necessary to make a fundamental change and to include abuse of trust provisions that apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It is right for the Bill to be non-discriminatory, although there are elements of discrimination left, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Given that the House has had the opportunity to resolve the key issues on free votes, it is right that the Bill should be voted into law.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said one thing with which I profoundly agree—the fact that one disapproves of an activity is not a good reason to make it criminal. That is an observation that might inform more people's approach to fox hunting than perhaps it does. It is true that one may disapprove of something without thinking that it should be made the subject of the criminal law. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill and the first time in 20 years that I have spoken on this subject. That notwithstanding, I shall be brief.
There are parts of the Bill with which I agree. I find the provisions of clause 2 correct. We have debated whether it goes far enough: I suspect that it does not, but that can be dealt with in another place or by the review, and the Minister has been good enough to indicate that special attention will be given to the concept of people in loco parentis, and those in their charge.
However, I do not agree with clause 1. The essential argument underpinning it is that it is desirable to establish equality in the criminal law for males and females. I hope that the House will forgive a very old-fashioned remark, but I believe that it is one that has greater resonance than we care to admit. One of the curses of the age is the lack of restraint on people's sexual appetites. The truth of that contention is evident in the enormous number of teenage pregnancies and of children born out of wedlock, in the very large incidence of abortion, in the many cases of venereal disease, and so forth.
That lack of restraint is a curse that has disfigured society, and that will continue to undermine its cohesion. I am reluctant to accept as valid the argument that, because 16 is an appropriate age of consent for females, we should make it the age of consent for young men. I am willing to accept that it is not possible to increase the age of consent for young women. Whether to do so would be good or bad in an ideal world does not matter—it is not realistic in the present age.
However, the question that we are asking is whether we should reduce the age of consent for young men. Against the background of my anxiety about society's willingness to succumb to sexual appetites, I am bound to say that I am very cautious about that proposition. In the course of my life—at school, at the criminal Bar, in the House and so on—I have become aware that older men can be predatory vis-a-vis young men. That is a fact of life, and much to be regretted. The Bill significantly increases the pressure on young men, and I oppose it for that reason.
I hope that the House will forgive another old-fashioned remark. I have never wanted to persecute homosexuals. In general, I do not think that they should be treated in a discriminatory way and, when asked, I have always said so. However, I do not believe that the

homosexual way of life is a wholly satisfactory existence. Further, I believe that the sexual orientation of many people is not fixed at a young age, and probably is not fixed even at 15, 16 or 17. I am very reluctant for the House to do anything that would encourage people to adopt the homosexual way of life, if otherwise they would not have done so.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is looking at me disapprovingly, and he will no doubt draw on his experiences as a doctor. However, I have years of experience at the Bar and elsewhere to draw on, and I have seen people who I suspect have changed their sexual way of life as a result of experiences when young. On balance, I think that they have had a less full and happy life than they would have had if they had become heterosexual.
I regret the Bill. I do not think that it is desirable, and I shall not support it if it is pushed to a vote. On the whole, I think that the House ought to regret the Bill, and I am sure that most of my constituents will do so.

Dr. Harris: I rise briefly to make two main points about the medical aspects of the Bill.
It is entirely wrong for Conservative Members to justify their opposition to clause 1 on medical grounds, when all the medical opinion—in the world, not just in this country—is that clause 1 is necessary to protect health. If Conservative Members want to bring health into the debate, they must recognise that the medical arguments favour reduction in the age of consent, to allow information about sexual health to get through to people who are sexually active.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I hope that I am not jumping the gun, but will the hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that the Bill when it is enacted—as it will be—will mean that figures for AIDS and sexual health among young men will be considerably better than today? What happens if they are not?

Dr. Harris: I have worked with HIV, in prevention and as a clinician, and my experience tells me that, all other things being equal, the fact that the Bill enables young people to access important information on sexual health will reduce the number of new HIV infections among young gay men. That is not just my view: it is shared by all the relevant organisations, especially the medical ones. As I have said on previous occasions, the council of the British Medical Association—not a radical organisation—was unanimous in its recommendation of a unified age of consent at 16.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: In a moment. The reason that the BMA council gave was that such a change would reduce the spread of HIV among young people. Other experience shows that the criminalisation of an activity drives it underground, with the result that people cannot get the information that they need.

Mrs. Winterton: How do you know?

Dr. Harris: The same thing happened, in the Victorian era, with back-street abortions. What is needed is


more education. I concede that young people—especially girls, if we are talking about abortion and teenage pregnancies—must be empowered to say no. That is a large element in sexual and health education. We will be able to do that—particularly for those of school age—only if we do not attach criminality to one type of behaviour and not to another.

Mr. Swayne: Should we therefore lower the age at which it is permissible for children to purchase tobacco products so that they can have greater access to health information about the consequences of smoking?

Dr. Harris: No. I do not believe that there is anything—other than the budgets of health education authorities—to prevent health educators passing information about the dangers of tobacco on to young people at risk. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when he was Minister, referred to scientific and expert opinion a great deal, but those who want to use health as an argument must recognise that the expert opinion supports those of us on my side of the argument.
Conservative Members are entitled to their opinion and—I do not mean the term derogatively—to their prejudices. However, without scientific opinion to back them up, they should not try to impose their views on other people.
Other arguments in favour of decriminalisation have been framed in terms of human rights. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about reality, so he will know that the European Court of Human Rights—which is not a European Union institution—is about to find against this country in that respect and that the European Commission of Human Rights has instructed the Government to let the House think again. So there are judicial reasons for the proposed equalisation in the age of consent. None of the hon. Members who say that the age of 16 is too young have tabled an amendment to raise the age of consent for girls, which at least would be consistent, if unrealistic.
Finally, Conservative Members implied that most predatory older men are homosexual. Of course there are predatory men who are homosexual, and I deplore some of the storylines recently on television, just as I have serious reservations about the contents of the famous Nabokov novel that has been made into a film. However, I do not recommend book-burning on that basis. The fact is that there are more predatory men also on the look out for girls—the proportions are probably similar.
I must tell the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) claimed not long ago that that was not so, and that, in fact, 15-year-old girls were recognised as hunting for older men and wanting relationships with them. The people who have spoken against the Bill on predation seem to want it both ways, but they cannot have it every which way. There is predation, and it should be condemned. However, it cannot be distinguished by sexuality. More sex education would give young people the power to say no.
Those without power, such as those in care homes, are entitled to the protection provided by clauses 2 to 4, and I agree with all that my right hon. Friend the Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said on that. My only concern on those clauses is how wide ranging they are. They cover teachers, even those who do not have a direct educational relationship with the people with whom they are having consensual sexual relations. Disciplinary codes already exist to punish behaviour that is wrong. To bring in the criminal law seems to be going too far.
In Committee, I raised the problem of Scottish higher education institutions, at which the majority of first-year students are 17. Anyone, even a postgraduate involved in teaching, will be subject to the Bill's provisions if he has sexual relations with a 17-year-old whom he knows to be an undergraduate, even if he is not teaching that student, but is doing some teaching as a postgraduate student.
A 22-year-old and a 17-year-old—and in many cases people meet their future life partners at university—will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Even if not prosecuted, they could be subject to worry, guilt and potential blackmail. It is strange to set apart 17-year-olds—both male and female—so that they will not be able to have relationships with their postgraduate peers. I hope that the other place will try to get rid of some of those problems.
I am sorry that the Minister is not here, as I need not have made my final point if he had allowed me to intervene even once on his closing remarks during one of our earlier debates. The point that I want to put on record is this: the Minister outlined the Government's motives for introducing the Bill. They had been forced to do so by the European Commission of Human Rights, and they would give the House a free vote on the age of consent. The welcome provision to decriminalise under-16s would provide protection for the young. There was, it seemed, no intention of recognising the other reason—equally valid in my opinion—that there is currently discrimination between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Government rejected other amendments to equalise the law between heterosexuals and homosexuals outwith protection of children issues.
I hope that the Government will be clear about their intentions. I have spoken to many people outside the House who have felt that that was not what they understood the position of the Labour party to be. In the party's election manifesto, there was a commitment
to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
Yet the Government have said that seeking to provide equality in criminal legislation during this Parliament is not on their agenda. Any measures that are taken will be a side effect of child protection, which is, of course, valuable in itself.
The Government should be clear whether the gay community—and those like myself who are outside the gay community, but who feel strongly about the issue on human rights grounds—is correct in understanding the Minister to mean that there will be no wider reform in this Parliament and that the motives for this reform on under 16-year-olds did not include equality.
We shall get the Bill through the House. I hope that it passes through the House of Lords at its first attempt. The larger the majority that we can muster, the more the will of the House of Commons should prevail.

Mr. Swayne: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and my profound impression is that it has become worse as it has proceeded through the House. A leap to the Bill's detriment has been taken this afternoon by the inclusion of new clause 4.
The Bill began with the intention of reducing the age of consent for homosexual young men. Its effect will be to abolish that age of consent. A young man under 16 may explore his sexuality without any constraint of the law. He need only choose a partner over the age of 16. For any young man in that position, there will be no age of consent under the Bill.
The Bill sets out to protect young people. I believe that it puts them at much greater risk. I have no doubt that it will serve to entrap a small number of young men in a life style that is gross and unnatural. They might otherwise have led a life not blighted in that way.
Some of the correspondence that I have had from constituents on this matter has been almost apocalyptic. It has suggested that all standards are being swept away, that the consequences will be disastrous and that there will be a huge increase in homosexuality. I do not believe that that is so. We must trust to the good sense of people, in which respect the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were instructive.
There are a number of motives behind the Bill. There are people who believe that equality before the law is the most important principle. I agree that the principle is important, but it is not the most important. There are those whose motive is to improve the health of the nation, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) seeks to do. He is mistaken, but his position is perfectly honourable.
There is another motive, however. There is a homosexualist agenda. The homosexual community, by its nature, is sterile, and it can survive and grow only by proselytising. There is an agenda to make it easier for that community to grow—an agenda that will be further expressed when all sorts of requests are made to get rid of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
Having said that, I believe that the wisdom of the general public is rather greater than that. It is unlikely that there will be a large increase in homosexuality. Irrespective of the change that we will make to the law today, most people are still profoundly disgusted, and alarmed, by homosexuality. That will provide a powerful incentive to reduce the level of homosexuality.
Many comments have been made to me, particularly in my correspondence, about how sorry and small a number have opposed the Bill. I think that those comments are wrong. If Lot had found himself in the Division Lobby with 126 voters and two tellers—all just men—the cities of the plain would have been saved.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who tackles issues straight on and who does not mince his words. I have not yet spoken in the debate, although I have voted against the Bill at every possible opportunity. It is fundamentally flawed, wrong and dangerous to the young men and boys about whom we are concerned.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that it was utterly wrong to seek to outlaw or criminalise something just because we do not like it. I agree with that. However, there is a great difference between sexual intercourse between a man and a woman—or, for that matter, a boy and a girl, whether they are over or under the age of 16—and the act of sodomy. That is what is so often practised in homosexual relationships. I do not hesitate to say from the Conservative Benches that heterosexual sex is a God-given act for reproduction, joy and pleasure. One cannot say that of the homosexual act—the act of sodomy.
I am not an expert on biology, but if God had meant men to commit sodomy or buggery with other men, even a doctor would admit that their bodies would have been built differently. That is a fundamental reason why there is a great difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual act.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was right to have concerns about clause 1 because it would enshrine in law an unnatural act, in particular an unnatural act of a young person who is vulnerable and in many cases does not know his true sexuality.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that the European Court of Human Rights or even the European Court of Justice would bring this Parliament to court as our legislation does not give equality to the sex act between men and women and men and men, but that does not mean that we should change our law. If someone said that I should jump off Beachy head because some European Court told me to do so, I would not jump off, and this mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons and, indeed, Parliament as a whole should not do something that it believes to be morally and fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Bermingham: The case will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The European charter on human rights will become part of our law on 1 January 2000. It is also a fact of history that in Act after Act, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and under Governments of all parties, this country has had to change its laws to comply with European law. One is taken to court and offered a deal, "Change the law and we won't go for you." That is what we have done time and again. There is nothing novel in the situation.

Mr. Winterton: Except when the hon. Gentleman was hectoring me when I intervened from a sedentary position, he has always been a most agreeable man. We come from the same region.

Mr. Swayne: Region?

Mr. Winterton: The north-west. I do not believe in regional government, and I will not be led down that path. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is a lawyer and I am not. I come from a business background. My constituents have elected me for almost 28 years, and I hope that I have a basic experience of life and that I also show good sense. Just because the law is an ass, it does not mean that I have to behave like an ass. If the European Court of Human Rights wants to bring the United Kingdom to court for failing to implement parts of the


convention, let it do so. I would prefer to go screaming to defeat rather than go passively like a sheep to the slaughter. I really mean that.
This House is about people expressing their own view. I am not entirely sure that every vote has been a free vote for Labour Members. That is my view and it is an instinct. My instinct is why I oppose enshrining in law homosexual acts between youngsters of 16 upwards.
We heard certain medical views from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I will repeat what I said following an intervention by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). When I was a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, we undertook an inquiry into AIDS. From all the evidence that we amassed, it was clear that the two prime sources of AIDS in this country were intravenous drug abuse—injecting oneself with infected or dirty needles—and the homosexual act. AIDS is costing the people of this country and of the world huge sums of money and is a great tragedy, which is resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

Ann Keen: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I will give way to the hon. Lady. I respect the sincerity with which she has advanced her cause, although I disagree with her.

Ann Keen: Does the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that unsafe sex in the heterosexual community also carries a great risk of infection with AIDS-HIV?

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to comment on that because that matter was also drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. AIDS among heterosexuals is sometimes due to bisexual men, who not only commit positive homosexual acts with men, but have heterosexual sex with women. That is one reason why there has been a limited number of AIDS cases resulting from heterosexual acts. A second reason is that one partner—either the man or the woman—is a drug abuser and injects him or herself with dirty needles. That is another way in which the AIDS disease can come into the heterosexual community.
Further to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham at the beginning of his short speech on Third Reading, I do not want to ban, criminalise or outlaw something in legislation merely because I dislike it. I do dislike homosexual behaviour because I believe it to be unnatural. This legislation will make a large number of young men more vulnerable to predators. I see my role as protecting young men so that they go through those formative and vulnerable years to have a normal heterosexual relationship, which is the natural relationship given by God.

Mr. Rogers: I have always voted against the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16, but after hearing some of the homophobic rantings from Conservative Members, I am not sure what to do this evening.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is obviously a great expert on homosexuality, but if he thinks that this legislation would create homosexuals,

that is nonsense. Listening to the hon. Gentleman has made me wonder whether he thinks that the best way to abolish homosexuality—complete nonsense in itself—is to abolish all, all-male institutions. I presume that he would want to abolish the Army, the Navy and a couple of other all-male institutions. He would probably abolish public schools—I understand that a great number of men have had their first experience of homosexuality in such schools, although I am not sure how many Labour Members that applies to. Perhaps all those of us who went to public schools could confess our experiences. I did not go; I went to Bargoed secondary school.
I am sorry that the issues have been turned into homophobic rantings. The reason that I will either abstain or vote against the Bill is that I think that people need to have time to develop their sexuality. As a young lad of 18, I went into the Army, an all-male environment. There were predators—people who had been in the Army for many years who looked for young lads. No one can deny that. When I was shadow defence Minister and homosexuality in the armed forces came up, we had a much more constructive debate than this on the problems of homosexuals in the Army and predators. I am afraid that the homophobic ranting might well make me abstain, but I will probably vote against. I do not believe that the law creates homosexuals. Homosexuality is a natural condition that people have within them. There is nothing we can do to legislate about it, but I am concerned about predators, which is one reason why I may well vote against.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) feels that there has been a lot of homophobic ranting by Conservative Members. That misrepresents what we have been saying. A feature of the way in which the Government have proposed the Bill is that they have cloaked it all with the word "equality". As we all subscribe to the concept of equality, we are invited to support it; if we do not, we are inferior citizens because we do not support the concept of equality.
All too often, it has been up to Conservative Members, with some distinguished contributions from Labour Members, to point out to the House and the wider public the Bill's practical consequences for young boys. It has largely been Conservative Members who have made that view known, but 13 Labour Members voted against clause 1 on 10 February. I do not know to what extent the Whips have been active.

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister need not get excited. He is not a Whip at the moment. There has been some cross-party support.

Mr. Rogers: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is untrue. I have always voted against the measure. I have never been approached by a Whip or Minister about how I vote. It is silly to suggest that.

Mr. Howarth: I think that I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, although I have checked Hansard and I see that he was not here to vote on clause 1


on 10 February. I hope that I can persuade him to support us in the Lobby tonight. This is an important issue and he should not feel that he cannot support those of us who oppose the Bill simply because some of my hon. Friends have been forthright in expressing their views. On Second Reading, one of his colleagues made a contribution that was much more explicit than anything that I have heard from other Members. The hon. Gentleman should remember that it is not Conservative Members who have been guilty of being too specific about the practicalities of what we are discussing.
I have spoken several times on the Bill because I believe that it is profoundly misguided. Those who have opposed the Bill have been concerned on two counts. First, we want to protect the vulnerable—the children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, it is extraordinary that a Government who go to such lengths to invoke the nanny state to interfere in people's lives—

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. The top item on today's news is that the Secretary of State for Wales has eaten beef on the bone. What a brave man to fly in the face of the Government's hostility to eating that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I think that it was the Prince of Wales.

Mr. Howarth: They were both eating beef on the bone, which is banned. The Secretary of State for Wales, having secured his "victory" in the recent election in Wales—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could turn his attention back to Third Reading.

Mr. Winterton: It is all too close to the bone.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend says that it is all too close to the bone, which is worth putting on record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has noted that the Government are keen to interfere in the decisions of individuals about how they run their lies. In this case, they wish to reduce the protection available to children. The Bill is utterly flawed because of clause 2, which provides for protection between the ages of 16 and 18 in certain circumstances, but only in certain circumstances. If the Bill's supporters believe that children between those ages need protection in some cases, it is logical for us to propose that all, and not only some, children between those ages should be protected. Therefore, the idea that this is all to do with equality is humbug.
It was only a few years ago that Parliament was invited to consider reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 18. All the arguments were deployed and we were told that it was not proposed that matters would go further and that 18 would be fine. Of course, there were some who argued for 16. Only a few years later, we face a decision to reduce the age to 16 from 18. I believe that the supporters of the Bill—not all, but many, and certainly some of the pressure groups outside—will seek to go further. It will not be long before we have—

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: Again, it is no good the Minister shaking his head. It is all in "Equality 2000". The fact is

that Stonewall has shown in its five-point plan how much further it wishes to go. There will therefore be further pressure. Passing the Bill will show that Parliament is prepared to go further.
I venture to suggest that there will be pressure for us to legalise homosexual marriages. I hope that those who support that will take note of what has been done in France. I gather that no fewer than 200,000 people demonstrated in Paris at the prospect of gay marriages. We know from what happened with the Countryside Alliance how the Government respond to public demonstrations. Perhaps those of us who feel strongly about this should take to the streets and demonstrate that we will not support any further move on this issue. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have private conversations. The hon. Gentleman must address the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Howarth: I was addressing the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must let me be the judge of that.

Mr. Howarth: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was only trying to point out that the Bill follows on from a decision made by the previous Parliament to reduce the age of consent from 21, where it had stood for many years, to 18 and that now, only a few years later, we are asked to reduce the age of consent again. I contend that it will not be long before we are invited to consider further moves to provide for the homosexual life style. In Paris, 200,000 people demonstrated against the concept of gay marriages, and I hope that people will take to the streets in this country if it appears likely that we are to go down that road. There is no public support for the Bill and it is extraordinary that so many members of a Government who rely on focus groups and opinion polls are prepared to defy public opinion.
I know that the Minister is a practising christian, so I hope that he will take note of what the bishops said before Second Reading. They said that the leaders of both Church and state have a duty
to protect them"—
children—
from harm and exploitation and to offer them a vision of what is good.
They added that legislation affecting sexual relationships should
set an example of what is good and be rooted in sound moral values".
They went on to say:
Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. These pressures should be resisted.
That is another reason why the Bill should be opposed.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made great play of the British Medical Association being all in favour of reducing the age of consent, but I remind him that the same argument was used in 1994, when it was claimed that, if we reduced the age of consent from 21 to 18, the number of new


HIV cases would fall because young people would come forward and seek advice without fear of being prosecuted. The truth is that figures show that, overall, HIV infections acquired through sex between men rose by 11 per cent. from 1995 to 1996—a full year after the change was made by Parliament. The British Medical Journal, which is the official organ of the BMA, said at the time that that was
a considerable rise compared with previous years
and found that new cases of HIV infection were
particularly common among young homosexual men.
I rest my case: the Bill will increase the risk of HIV infection among vulnerable young men by increasing their exposure to that fatal illness. I do not believe that either the BMA or the hon. Gentleman has proved that medical opinion is in favour of the Bill. There is clear evidence that, if the Bill is passed, there will be increased infection among young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. I find it deeply offensive that a matter of this nature should be decided by a court beyond our islands, when this Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding this issue. Even if I oppose Parliament's likely decision, I do not believe that it should be second-guessed by foreigners sitting in Strasbourg or anywhere else. We should be able to decide such matters in this country and I resent that idea that Parliament cannot adequately safeguard human rights.
We have had our say and made a strong case on why the Bill should be resisted. I shall vote against it on Third Reading, as I did on Second Reading, and I hope that I shall be joined by a good representative number of Labour Members. I also hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their lordships will not be afeared to stand firm as they have done before and that, if we cannot defeat the Bill in this House, they will ensure that public opinion is properly reflected by voting it down in the other place.

Mr. Clappison: Clauses 1 and 2 have been the subject of free votes among Conservative Members and, as I said, when I speak from the Dispatch Box I am expressing only my personal views. My right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed their views, which may be different. In this matter, we are called on to exercise our individual judgment and decide what we think is the appropriate age of consent.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was right: the case which he mentioned is before the European Court, which has decided that there is a case to answer. We do not know what the outcome will be. Even before the European convention on human rights was incorporated into domestic law, we always incorporated the findings of the European Court in our law. Even so, on a matter such as the one before us now, we have to exercise our individual consciences and judgment and do what is right, while simultaneously endeavouring to represent our constituents as best we can.
I do not feel any shred of homophobia: I do not think that homosexuality is evil or wrong; still less do I think that individual homosexuals are evil. However, when

called on to exercise my judgment on the right age of consent—we have to set one; we cannot do away with it altogether—the more I think about it, the more I believe that 18 is the appropriate age of consent and that 16 is simply far too young.
That was my view when the matter came before the House last year, in an amendment to what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At that time, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who served on the Standing Committee, raised the important matter of the protection of young people. He did the House a great service in doing so, for that is an eminently worthy objective and one of which the House should be mindful, especially in view of the catalogue of cases chronicled in the Utting report, to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. He described many cases in which young people in residential and other forms of care had been made the victims of abuse by older people—a scandalous state of affairs which had existed for far too long and was brought to light time and again, to an almost unbelievable extent.
The hon. Gentleman brought that issue to the House's attention, and the debate that took place at that time gave rise to clause 2, which attempts to protect young people by creating a new offence of abuse of trust. We should do all that we can to promote that worthy objective, but the provisions that the Government have produced to achieve that aim fall well short of what is needed. It has three important weaknesses: first, clause 2 does nothing to protect under-16s, yet it is under-16s who are the main subject matter of the Utting report. They are the most vulnerable and the most in need of protection from potential abusers. We believe that there are ways in which under-16s could be given greater protection, but the Bill does not go so far, and that is an important defect.
Secondly, in respect of the protection that the Bill does give to 16 and 17-year-olds, the scope of the definition of a position of trust set down in the Bill by the Government is not nearly broad enough. The public will feel that many people who are not included in that definition should be so included. To adopt an argument advanced by the Liberal Democrats, some teachers who are considered to be in a position of trust under the Bill might well wonder why that should be when other people in other walks of life—clergymen, youth leaders—are not so considered. With great eloquence and gloss, the Minister put his arguments as to why that should be so. However, I am not convinced by them. I am more convinced by the contribution of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who, in a much earlier speech, asked quite bluntly why clergymen, scout leaders and other youth leaders had not been brought within the ambit of the Bill. It is difficult to understand why they are not.
The third defect is that the maximum sentence was too low. That situation has now been remedied through our amendment in Committee, and we welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense and increased the maximum penalty.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) remarked about my earlier contribution to the House when I drew attention to the number of prosecutions for offences involving under-age sex and how there had been a significant change—a collapse—in those figures following the last lowering of the age of consent. I heard the points that the hon. Gentleman made on this subject. I did not call then—and I do not do so now—for any oppressive action or witch hunt. I do not


want the police or other authorities to go on the offensive and seek out convictions under this offence. I hope that the law will be enforced properly, sensibly and sensitively, especially—but not exclusively—when one of the perpetrators is much older.
I listened to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on the question of decriminalising the offence when one of the parties is under age. I can provide some reassurance on that point. I understand the concern that motivates him, but he must bear in mind the fact that, even with new clause 4, the offence will remain when both parties are under age. When only one of the parties is under age, it will be an offence for the over-age party. The law exists to protect the under-age party and to bring the older party to justice in those circumstances. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, on balance, that is the decision that we must take and that is where the public interest lies. We must bring the older party to justice without creating any disincentive for the younger person to report the offence. The under-age party should not become embroiled in criminal proceedings, and this is a sensible and well-justified change.
I do not believe that clause 2 goes far enough in protecting young people. I think that the Government were timid in introducing the Bill, which contains several potential loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies. I am doubtful about the defence that the Government afford to older people who, I believe, should know the ages of those they are teaching and looking after. That defence is anomalous and creates an entirely new type of defence. I am also concerned about the precedent that it will set. Although I welcome any attempts to protect young people, the Government's attempts are flawed.
Those flaws are greater still when it comes to the main subject of the Bill. I do not feel any animus towards homosexual people: I welcome greater tolerance in society. However, I believe that 16 is too young for the purposes of the Bill. When the matter first came before the House, I supported reducing the age of consent from 21 to 18 years because I thought that the case for that change was well made and that it was oppressive for people to have to wait until the age of 21 before engaging in homosexual activities. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, some young people of 15, 16 and 17 are not fixed in their sexual preferences. I think that they should practise a little abstinence and wait until they are 18 before engaging lawfully in such activities.
That view was shared by the Wolfenden commission, which certainly did not start from a position of hostility towards homosexuals. That commission discounted 16 as an age of consent in the 1950s. It found that too many young men did not have fixed sexual preferences at that age and that 16 was too young to take such a big step which could have profound consequences for the rest of people's lives. I believe that it does not do any harm to make a person wait until 18.
I believe that many people share that view. I know that public opinion has been prayed in aid on all sides of the debate—it is difficult to be entirely accurate about public opinion in these circumstances. Many people have strong views about homosexuality and oppose it altogether—that is entirely a matter for them. However, many others look at the issue pragmatically and ask, "What is the

appropriate age for youngsters to become involved in homosexual activity?" Drawing on their own lives and everyday experiences, they have concluded that 16-year-olds are far too young to take such momentous decisions.
Hon. Members who favour reducing the age of consent to 16 are taking a step that will leave many constituents and a large section of the public with a sense of deep unease. This momentous decision comes hot on the heels of an earlier reduction in the age of consent from 21 to 18 years. The Bill goes too far too fast and allows people to make this important decision when they are still too young. Those are my views and that is why I shall oppose the measure.

Mr. Boateng: This has been a wide-ranging debate. I wish that it had not ranged as wide as the twin cities of the plain via Aldershot and the New forest. Nevertheless, if that is where the debate had to lead, so be it. This debate has been spread over several sessions. We have considered the Bill carefully, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the care and attention that they have displayed in the House and in Committee.
Everyone has had plenty of opportunities to express his or her views and, in the main, those views have been heard respectfully. Therefore, it is rather sad that some Opposition Members should suggest that those who support the Bill do so at the behest of some hidden, or not so hidden, agenda. That does not do justice to the deeply held feelings about fairness and equality that many hon. Members share with people outside this place who do not work to any hidden agenda either. The agenda for those who support the Bill is clear: equality and respect. They seek equality before the law in terms of equalising the age of consent and respect for vulnerability and trust, and share a determination to ensure that that trust is not broken. They are two distinct aims and it is important to stress that the two parts of the Bill are separate: each is important in its own right.
We must also be clear about what the Bill can and cannot do. It can—I believe that it should—provide for equality before the law in relation to the age of consent. It can—I believe that it should—provide specific targeted protection for people who are particularly at risk from abuse of trust perpetrated by those in positions of authority. However, the Bill cannot go beyond that without the risk of getting it badly wrong.
I assure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that the Bill cannot remove all the anomalies and inequities in sexual offences law; nor can it be a wide-ranging child protection measure which rewrites the law on a grand scale. For example, the Bill cannot protect children in the family home or guard against abuse from strangers. Protection of the vulnerable, coupled with equality before the law, is the driving aim of the sexual offences review. We will ensure that the European convention on human rights informs and shapes the outcome of that review.
Those who suggest that people support the measure—the charge was levelled particularly at my right hon. and hon. Friends—simply to comply with the European Court of Human Rights are wrong. The impulse is quite different: it recognises the importance of equality before the law and the need to protect the vulnerable in circumstances in which trust may be abused. That is what drives this legislation.
I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others that we ought to be concerned—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has certainly accepted this point—about a society in which there is a lack of restraint in people's sexual appetite. It is wrong to believe that concern about unrestrained sexual appetite exists solely on one side of the House. We are all concerned about recognising the importance of children and young people deferring sexual activity as late as it is reasonable to expect them to do so. We all understand that.
Are we not all concerned about the sexualisation of children and young people? If we are not, we certainly ought to be. However, to believe that criminal law is the way to ensure that young people refrain from irresponsible or dangerous sexual behaviour simply flies in the face of reason. Young people will not be deterred from sex by the criminal law. We know that young people are made frightened, fearful and ill, but we know also that young people do not desist from sexual activity because we criminalise that activity.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to speak during our discussions on these matters.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) again suggests that there is a hidden agenda at work. We know that there is evidence that we cannot ascribe to homosexuals the spread of AIDS. It is wrong to demonise any group of people in that way. AIDS is a public health issue and, when we are concerned with such issues, we must recognise that ignorance, fear and lack of information contribute to a danger to public health. Those are the real dangers, not this measure. To suggest otherwise does not do justice to the arguments.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his say during our debates, and no doubt we shall return to the subject.
The House has had an opportunity to express a view and to scrutinise the Bill in great depth. It is now time to send the Bill to another place. I believe that, tonight, the Bill and its detailed proposals will receive an overwhelming endorsement based on principles of equality and a determination to ensure that the vulnerable are protected from abuse of trust. That is what will motivate hon. Members in the Lobbies tonight, and the other place had better listen to the democratically elected Chamber, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it crystal clear that we do not intend for the will of Parliament to be thwarted again. Each and every one of us will go into the Lobbies tonight exercising his or her conscience. This is a free vote, and I, for one, shall vote for Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 82.

Division No. 79]
[8.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Alexander, Douglas
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Allan, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Ennis, Jeff


Atkins, Charlotte
Etherington, Bill


Baker, Norman
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ballard, Jackie
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Tony
Fearn, Ronnie


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Flint, Caroline


Beard, Nigel
Flynn, Paul


Begg, Miss Anne
Follett, Barbara


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Best, Harold
Galloway, George


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gapes, Mike


Blizzard, Bob
Gardiner, Barry


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Borrow, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boswell, Tim
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brady, Graham
Godsiff, Roger


Brake, Tom
Goggins, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Grogan, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Cawsey, Ian
Harris, Dr Evan


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Hope, Phil


Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cooper, Yvette
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darvill, Keith
Keeble, Ms Sally






Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ruane, Chris


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruddock, Joan


Key, Robert
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kidney, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Salter, Martin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sanders, Adrian


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Shipley, Ms Debra


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Singh, Marsha


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAllion, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen


McDonnell, John
Spellar, John


McIsaac, Shona
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stinchcombe, Paul


McWalter, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard


McWilliam, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stringer, Graham


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Temple—Morris, Peter


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Timms, Stephen


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Moffatt, Laura
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Truswell, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tyler, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug



Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin



Osborne, Ms Sandra



Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken



Quinn, Lawrie



Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick



Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rendel, David



Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Vis, Dr Rudi
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Watts, David
Wood, Mike


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Wills, Michael
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Loughton, Tim


Benton, Joe
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bercow, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brazier, Julian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Page, Richard


Butterfill, John
Paterson, Owen


Cann, Jamie
Pickles, Eric


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Pollard, Kerry



Powell, Sir Raymond


Clappison, James
Randall, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rogers, Allan


Cran, James
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ruffley, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Day, Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Faber, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Thompson, William


Grieve, Dominic
Trend, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Walter, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Wardle, Charles


Heald, Oliver
Wareing, Robert N


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wray, James


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Desmond Swayne.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Scottish Enterprise Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 places a financial limit upon Scottish Enterprise. The purpose of the Bill, as hon. Members who have followed its progress will know, is to increase the financial limit from the present level of £3,000 million to £4,000 million. In addition, it removes the provision enabling the Secretary of State to increase the limit further by statutory instrument.
Scottish Enterprise will reach the current limit in June. The Bill is required to allow it to continue to operate until March 2001. Thereafter, the Scottish Parliament will decide on the funding arrangements of Scottish Enterprise.
The Bill is technical. Both sides of the House supported it in principle on Second Reading and it was not amended in Committee. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Bill is brief, and the Minister has made a brief speech. With his usual engaging manner, he sought to lull us into a sufficient sense of insensibility so that we would not wish to contribute at length. I certainly do not intend to detain the House for long, but some points need to be raised.
Our deliberations on the Bill have, surprisingly, occasioned some interesting debate. We have considered the question whether the agency to which it refers—Scottish Enterprise—is itself efficient. More importantly, we have considered whether the House, under the proposals for devolution enacted in the Scotland Act 1998, ought to continue to have a role of oversight in relation to the expenditure by that agency, given that the great part of its funding will come from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
I do not wish to rehearse again those arguments which have been amply rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister has been a kind of gentle Ozymandias throughout, asking us, in effect, to make our arguments, but not to press them to the point where he needs to tell us politely to disappear. However, in the course of that debate, we have become increasingly aware of another problem to which we have not yet alluded and, before we leave this subject, it needs to be aired.
Scottish Enterprise is not alone—there are other agencies like it around the United Kingdom. The Welsh Development Agency—the so-called economic powerhouse of Wales—is a prime example. In due course, there may be more agencies seeking to attract investment to a region or a country within the UK. It is to the great advantage of the UK as a whole if investment that would not otherwise come arrives under circumstances where that investment is drawn from outside the UK, where it would otherwise not have arrived in the UK but would have gone outside, or where it simply would not otherwise have been made. The same applies in the case of jobs.
Alas, that is not the only kind of activity in which regional or country-based development agencies need necessarily act. They may engage—nothing in their constitution prevents them from doing so—in a bidding war against one another to try to draw investment, and hence jobs, from one part of the UK to another. That is not a problem that afflicts Scottish Enterprise in particular. Nothing about Scottish Enterprise gives rise to the fear that it may seek to engage in such activity, but Scottish Enterprise has that ability. By raising its financial limit this evening, as we shall eventually do, we shall increase, rather than reduce, that ability.
Under normal circumstances—certainly under circumstances that would have obtained before the Scotland Act 1998 and its sister legislation in Wales and Northern Ireland—that potential problem would have existed anyway. Since the enactment of that legislation, that problem has increased and taken on a new character, which this Third Reading provides the House with an opportunity to ponder. Let us imagine the circumstances in reverse: that, in due course, the Government were to introduce parallel legislation in respect of agencies for the English regions. Let us suppose that those English regions were to use taxpayers' funds to engage in a bidding war to draw investment and jobs away from Scotland into the English regions.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Or into Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Letwin: Or let us suppose that the Welsh Development Agency or a similar agency in Northern Ireland were to engage in the same activity, which is already possible. It would then be quite reasonable for people in Scotland to object on the basis that they were partly funding an agency that was drawing jobs and investment away from them. People in other parts of the United Kingdom could harbour similar feelings if, benefiting from this legislation, Scottish Enterprise were to engage in the same activity.
I hope that the House will note that I am specifically not making an argument that is derogatory about Scottish Enterprise and its management, nor do I suggest that there is an asymmetry between the way in which people in Scotland would act or respond, and the way in which people in other parts of the Kingdom would act or respond. On the contrary, I am talking about rational behaviour and attitudes on the part of people throughout the Kingdom. It is a fact of life that no one likes to have some of their money used, via the Consolidated Fund, to fund an agency to take jobs and investment away from their patch in the United Kingdom.
Following devolution, that pattern could all too easily be exploited, in particular by nationalists. If a party wanted to destabilise the United Kingdom and to play on the rational fears that I have described, it could all too easily use the fact that a development agency such as Scottish Enterprise or one in another part of the kingdom is dragging jobs and investment from its part—the part that the nationalists in question happen to defend and to believe should be separate—to another.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not "could"—such a party certainly will. It is human nature.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is probably right, as he often is, but I hope that he will note that I am trying


to make the case not in the most lurid way, but, on the contrary, in the most cautious way possible. It is at least evidently possible. He may be right that it will occur.
My concern is to make it abundantly clear that I am not trying to arouse or to inflame sentiments. On the contrary, I am trying to assuage. I am trying to put the case in as calm a way as I can to make it clear that we have a collective problem that should be faced by people from all parts of the kingdom who wish the United Kingdom to remain intact.
Of course I recognise honourably that some hon. Members present do not wish the UK to remain intact. They will welcome any mechanism that enables the United Kingdom more rapidly to descend into tension.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am following what my hon. Friend says with care. He will be more familiar with the passage of the Bill than I am, but have the Government at any stage during its passage in the House or in Committee published or presented to the House or Committee a concordat—which, I understand, should occur—between Scotland, Wales and the regions of England about the circumstances in which particularly regional selective assistance is to be made available?

Mr. Letwin: The short answer is, of course, no. As my hon. Friend will know, the whole question of concordats is extremely vexed. None of us knows what the juridical status of the administrative contracts between—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The terms of the Bill are narrow. We are talking about increasing the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise, so we should not go into the powers that a new Parliament in Edinburgh, or any other devolved Parliament might have. We must stick to the Bill before us.

Mr. Letwin: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that, under the Bill, the financial limit for Scottish Enterprise having been increased, its ability—were it to choose to do so—to engage in the activities that I have described will increase. That would have to be restricted via a concordat, I think, unless it were restricted by Act of Parliament.
During the debates on the Bill, the Minister has not advanced any suggestion that the Bill should be amended to introduce a mechanism to restrict the activities of Scottish Enterprise in drawing away investment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have now come to Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman had opportunities to table amendments in Committee. He could also have tabled what are known as probing amendments. It is not for me to tell him what his job is, but we have landed at the Third Reading of the Bill, which is very narrow. He must keep to the terms of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Letwin: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? In considering whether we should give the Bill a Third Reading, I must also consider whether there is to be a concordat between Scotland,

Wales and England on the circumstances in which grant aid is to be provided for projects. That, surely, is of some relevance. Is it acceptable for us to debate it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are always opportunities for hon. Members to find out about such matters. There are many occasions, including Scottish questions, on which the hon. Gentleman can find out about those other matters, but he can only talk about what is in the Bill. I am guided by the rules of the House, which say that we are discussing only Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Letwin: I am guided by your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My observations are intended to suggest that there remains a deficiency in the Bill, in that it provides no mechanism to constrain the activities of Scottish Enterprise in relation to drawing investment from other parts of the United Kingdom. That ought to be common ground between all those present who are not in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister is not in favour of that. The Opposition are not either, and I believe that others present are not, with the exception of members of one party.
I think that all of us who share that view should regard the Bill as—alas—a missed opportunity. That does not mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with it from a positive point of view, for it does its job perfectly adequately, but it fails to do another job, and, if the Minister considers the issue, he may think that that job is worth doing in some form or another. I hope that, if and when the House must consider further legislation concerning such an agency—I doubt that there will be another Bill concerning this agency, for obvious reasons—the Minister will recommend such mechanisms to his ministerial colleagues. Those observations clearly apply with equal force to any regional agency in England, for example, and such matters would be dealt with in the House.
You were right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to admonish me for not having raised this matter earlier. On reflection, I think that it would have been a good idea to table amendments. I do not, however, want to let the Third Reading debate pass without having made a point that I consider to be right, even if the person making it is culpable in not having made it earlier. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to press the Minister. I also hope that the Minister will have a word or two to say about whether the Government accept the general principle. Whether or not they finally agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested that it was inevitable that the problem would arise, I hope that they will accept that there is a potential for it to arise. I trust that the Minister will tell us that the Government will address, in some manner—they cannot do so in the context of this Bill—the need to prevent a bidding war that would draw investment uselessly from one part of the kingdom to another, to the possible advantage of separatists whom most of us do not wish to prosper.

Mr. Lansley: Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions asking what had been the maximum cost per job of provision for projects in Scotland, Wales and England. The responses showed that, in Scotland, the maximum cost per job had reached £17,000, whereas in Wales and England it had reached £15,000. On the face of it, therefore, there is scope for Scottish Enterprise to


use the resources available at a higher maximum cost per job than would be possible in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend, as he does so often, makes an interesting point. I suppose that, in raising the financial limits for Scottish Enterprise, the Bill would potentially aggravate the situation.

Sir Robert Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the consequences of not passing the Bill?

Mr. Letwin: There is ample evidence on the record, from statements made on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, to suggest that Her Majesty's Opposition have no intention of preventing the Bill's passage. We recognise that it needs to be passed, because Scottish Enterprise needs to continue its work, much of which—notwithstanding the comments that we have made about its efficiency—is valuable.

Mr. John Bercow: I appreciate the position taken on the matter by Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, but I am conscious also of my hon. Friend's reputation as a Unionist. Is he saying that he is prepared to countenance, by supporting the Bill, a situation in which we acquiesce in, or vote for, differential treatment of different parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend was right to seek, on my behalf, that I should protect my reputation as a Unionist; I hold nothing dearer. We are told nowadays that that view is shared on both sides of the House, and that is much to be welcomed.

Mr. Bercow: Action speaks louder than words.

Mr. Letwin: Alas, in some respects, that is true.
The purpose of the Bill is not in any way to aggravate the problem that I have been describing. If the Bill's provisions were abused, it could lead to an aggravation of the problem—but that is not the purpose of the Bill itself. I fear that, if the Bill is passed without amendment, it will be a missed opportunity to cure a potential problem. I do not by any means go so far as to say that, in itself, it will cause a further problem.
The Opposition shall therefore not be pressing the matter so that it causes friction or difficulty for Scottish Enterprise itself or for the Government. We do, however, urge the Minister to take on board the points that I have made. I hope that, in his usual manner, he will tell the House that he recognises the seriousness of the issues and that he will seek to address them in one way or another.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the Bill's Third Reading, and the potential additional investment—an increase in the aggregate amount outstanding from £3 billion to £4 billion—that it will provide for Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries. There will be a general welcome for the increase not only in

the House, but across Scotland. In his reply, however, will the Minister be good enough to give us some indication of how he envisages that additional money will be used to regenerate the Scottish economy and to try to improve job opportunities for the people of Scotland?
The Minister may recall that, last week, at Scottish Question Time, I pointed out that, according to International Labour Organisation statistics, last year unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by 98,000, whereas there was a 9,000 increase in Scotland. That was before the recent declaration of redundancies at places such as Wrangler, BP, Kvaerner, Bishopton and Volvo. In the past month, in the Falkirk area alone, more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced. It has been the biggest spate of redundancies in the area for many years.
I was very disappointed indeed last week with the Secretary of State's reply to my question. He said:
A little perspective would be rather more helpful than suggesting that the end of the world is nigh."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 166.]
That reply went down like a lead balloon in Falkirk.
Last week, the Secretary of State never even replied to my suggestion of a top-level meeting, comprising a high-ranking Minister and representatives of local people and the local business community, to discuss the area's jobs crisis. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has just entered the Chamber.
I hope that the Scottish Enterprise Bill will offer, through Scottish Enterprise and Forth Valley Enterprise, an opportunity for more investment in areas such as Falkirk. I should like the Minister or the Secretary of State to confirm that, and to outline specific proposals for action.
As the Secretary of State and the Minister may know, recently, with representatives of the local community, I took part in a delegation that went to see Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who has responsibility at the Scottish Office for business and industry. We made a very strong case for assisted area status in the Falkirk area, to encourage industrial and economic development. That case was supported by the chairman of Forth Valley Enterprise, who participated in the delegation. I hope that the additional investment that the Bill provides will help him to put some money where his mouth is and ensure that Forth Valley Enterprise works in partnership with potential inward investors in the private sector to persuade them to come to our area and ensure that something is done to reduce the appalling and unacceptable level of unemployment.
The Bill should increase the investment potential of Forth Valley Enterprise, which should help to save existing jobs and create new ones through inward investment. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister said how he thinks that the Bill will help to regenerate the economy in the Falkirk area and improve the employment prospects of my constituents.

Sir Robert Smith: I shall be brief, because this is a short Bill and I do not want to hold up other matters to be discussed later this evening that affect Scottish business. Scottish legislation will not hold the House up in future and we shall have time to scrutinise other issues more closely.
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides for transitional arrangements to keep Scottish Enterprise alive and active until the Scottish Parliament takes control of its affairs, guiding and directing the most efficient use of the money in Scotland to be invested for the benefit of Scotland.
Given that no amendments were tabled in Committee or on Report, the Bill has clearly not attracted much controversy. The fact that the Official Opposition have said that they do not intend to vote against it suggests that it deserves to be passed quickly, so that we have time to scrutinise other measures.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because he could not see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was looking as though she were the cat who had swallowed the cream. The truth is that she has swallowed the cream. Every Member of the Holyrood Parliament will inevitably behave like the nationalists in this matter. People struggle for their institution. Conflict will certainly materialise in some form. That is why I intervened to say that it will, rather than it could.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the financing of Scottish Enterprise would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We have a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench. What is the Treasury view of the Minister's statement? Is it fully endorsed by the Treasury? I should be very interested to have confirmation of that, because I wonder whether it has been agreed by the Treasury.
I should like to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). There is a problem with assisted area status. The area that I have the good fortune to represent is one of the more prosperous parts not only of Scotland, but of Britain. However, Ministers had better be careful about killing the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. Thousands of people from Lanarkshire and 1,500 to 2,000 people from Fife come into west Lothian every day because of the factories in Livingston and elsewhere that we have been fortunate enough to attract.
Ministers must be careful because, even now, this is a fragile economy. My hon. Friend the Minister knows all the arguments that have been expertly deployed by West Lothian district council. I should like an answer to the question on assisted area status, and how this will be dovetailed.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief—so brief that I shall sit down before 9 o'clock. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) as a cat who had swallowed the cream. However, I totally reject the Cassandra-like projection offered by my hon. Friend. I know of one candidate hoping to secure a seat in the Scottish Parliament who would reject entirely the notion that she was a nationalist.
I reject also what the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) had to say about the Scottish Parliament and its monitoring of Scottish Enterprise's expenditure. I have

every confidence that the kind of candidates that all parties are putting forward for the Scottish Parliament will carry out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given some leeway, but I cannot allow discussion of candidates. The Bill is narrow—it proposes to double the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise. That is all we can talk about.

Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I wanted to make the point that any extra investment—we are talking about an extra £1 billion, not £3 billion—should be used to re-energise those parts of the country which have been hit badly by job losses. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the 650 jobs disappearing from National Semiconductor, the 350 jobs to be lost at Amp in Port Glasgow and job losses at Royal Ordnance Bishopton and elsewhere. It is essential that that money be used to maintain work and to bring in highly skilled work.
Finally, I wish to make a plea for the Gourock waterfront, because the infrastructure needs to be developed. If that can take place with money from Renfrewshire Enterprise, the whole area will be a much better place in which to live, and it will attract more investment and more jobs.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wish to put it on record that there is enormous Back-Bench appreciation of the huge increase in the budget of Scottish Enterprise, and we expect great things from it. I am speaking as a Glasgow Member of Parliament, representing one of a number of constituencies with high and continuing levels of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that everybody in the Scottish Parliament would be a nationalist. The truth of the matter might be that we will all be Glasgow nationalists, Edinburgh nationalists, Aberdeen nationalists and so on.
There are serious concerns, and that is why there will be enormous resentment about the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, who begrudged us the extra money for areas of our country which have badly needed money to make employment possible. Instead, some have had money sucked out of them—as has been the case with Glasgow.

Mr. Dalyell: May I just clarify something? I did not say—nor would I ever say—that my hon. Friend or any of our colleagues were nationalists. I said that members of the Scottish Parliament would behave as if they were nationalists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it might have been better if I had stopped the hon. Gentleman making those remarks in the first place. I will certainly not allow him to do so in an intervention. I believe in any case that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has finished.

Mr. Macdonald: This has turned out to be another interesting debate on a narrow and technical measure. I should remind the House that the Bill increases the


borrowing limits for Scottish Enterprise—it does not, of itself, increase the funds available. It allows Scottish Enterprise to continue to be funded, and it allows the Government to continue to provide Scottish Enterprise with the money it needs to carry out its work.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Is the Treasury content for the Scottish Parliament to ask Scottish Enterprise to increase the limit further, even though it may be taking on borrowing powers or contingent liabilities, without any further limit being set for national economic reasons?

Mr. Macdonald: It will be for the Scottish Executive to decide how much money to provide to Scottish Enterprise out of the Scottish block. That is what devolution is all about. The Treasury is fully satisfied with the Bill.
It is legitimate to ask about inward investment, but not necessarily in the context of the Bill; it might be more appropriate in discussions on the Scotland Act 1998. The Government accept that it would be sensible to have effective co-ordination of financial assistance offered throughout the United Kingdom. It is in no one's interest to have an auction or bidding war. The White Paper on devolution envisaged that United Kingdom guidelines and consultation arrangements for the devolved bodies would be set out by concordat.
There is nothing new or special about that in principle. The incentives that can be offered to inward investors will depend on assisted area status, which is itself dependent on various European Union rules and regulations. It is not uniquely a United Kingdom problem. It is a matter of concern throughout Europe that we should not get unfair playing fields or uncompetitive practices, so we will seek to establish in the United Kingdom, by concordat, the same principles that we want to agree throughout the European Union.
Some of my hon. Friends have expressed concerns about unemployment and job losses in their constituencies. That is a matter of concern to the Government, which is why we need to ensure that Scottish Enterprise continues to function and put its strategy into effect. Thanks to the new deal and other measures, unemployment—the claimant count—is at its lowest in Scotland since 1977, under the previous Labour Government, and we should take some pride and satisfaction from that; but every job loss is a matter of genuine and grave concern not only to constituency Members but to the Government.
Scottish Enterprise recently published its strategy. The Bill is technical and will simply allow the borrowing limits to be raised to allow Scottish Enterprise to continue to carry out its work and the Scottish Parliament to institute future arrangements as appropriate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Nick Gibb: I beg to move,
That the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 3175), dated 17th December 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be revoked.
I thank the Government for allowing a debate on this important and far-reaching statutory instrument. The regulations are yet another example of the Government's policy of raising taxes by stealth. The Prime Minister, in the months leading up to the general election, said:
We have no plans to raise taxes at all.
In response to a phone-in caller, he promised:
Our proposals do not involve raising taxes, and if we have any such proposals we will make them clear before the election.
Within three months of his election as Prime Minister, his Government raised taxes. Those additions now amount to some £40 billion of tax increases, including the cuts in married couple's allowance, the cut in mortgage interest relief at source, extra petrol duties, higher stamp duties, especially on businesses, and a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds. The corporation tax regulations will cost industry £1.6 billion in the first year, £2 billion in the second year, £3.1 billion in year three and £2.2 billion in year four.
The regulations change the whole system of corporation tax. As such, it is wrong that the regulations should be implemented by secondary legislation—and by negative resolution at that. The regulations amount to just 15 paragraphs and they could and should have been included in last year's Finance Bill, so that they could have been debated at length and, more importantly, amended. As the Institute of Directors has said:
The dates on which tax is payable and any associated penalties are fundamental matters, which should be dealt with in primary legislation.
Senior accountants have expressed their concern about this use of secondary legislation. It prompted Richard Collier-Keywood, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, to say:
I think we are getting perilously close to some constitutional issues.
The regulations change the dates on which companies have to pay their corporation tax bills. Under the current system, which has been in place for nearly three decades, companies pay their tax bills nine months after the end of their accounting period. A company with an accounting period ending on 31 December 1998 would pay its tax bill on 1 October 1999. Under the system proposed in the regulations, companies will have to pay their tax in four quarterly instalments, with the first instalment being paid six months before the end of the accounting period, the second three months before the end, with the final two instalments being paid at year-end and three months after it. In other words, whereas currently companies pay their tax some 21 months after the beginning of an accounting period, under the new system companies will start to pay their tax after just six months.
That is an enormous change and brings forward the tax bills of 20,000 of the largest companies in this country. Together, those companies employ more than half of all employees and represent half of the total turnover in


businesses in the United Kingdom. That is why the measure will raise £8.9 billion of extra taxes over the four-year transition period, money which has to be found and paid over by the corporate sector. That money could have been used for investment and job creation.

Mr. John Bercow: In regularly and wrongly claiming that the burden of corporation tax has been reduced since the general election, is the Prime Minister guilty, in my hon. Friend's opinion, of knavery or folly?

Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
The Government were elected on a clear mandate of no tax rises, but there have been £40 billion of tax rises in a mere two years. In addition to the taxes that I have mentioned, we have seen a £5.2 billion windfall tax, a £5 billion tax on pension funds and the £15 billion regulatory burden on business. Those are staggering sums of money to take from British business. Anyone who claims that it will not damage British industry is at best naive and at worst negligent of, and reckless with, the job prospects of hundreds of thousands of employees.

Ms Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman tells us that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there would be no tax increases under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the utilities tax—the windfall tax—which was part of our manifesto commitment and was clearly flagged up. His two statements are incorrect—or incompatible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Although the hon. Lady was making an intervention, I should make it clear to hon. Members that we are discussing a statutory instrument that deals with the collection of corporation tax; not taxation in general.

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The windfall tax was the one tax measure highlighted in the manifesto; no other tax measures were mentioned. The tax changes that we are discussing were not mentioned in the Labour manifesto.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: In proposing to revoke the statutory instrument, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there will be a significant drop in Government revenue. How would he plug that gap? What other taxes would he raise, and which public services would he cut?

Mr. Gibb: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) does not want to go into that matter, as that would be straying from the motion before the House.

Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, the money will have been spent by the time that the Conservatives return to office, but, when we return, we shall clear up the mess left by the Government.
No one should be taken in by the Government's argument that the cost of the regulations will be offset by the cut in the corporation tax rate. One glance at the

Red Book will dispel that myth. In 1999–2000, the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments will cost industry £1,600 billion. The benefit of the rate cut, according to the Red Book, will be "negligible". In the following year, the quarterly payment will cost industry £2,000 million, but the benefit from the rate cut will be only £700 million. That is why the Confederation of British Industry states:
The reduction in the Corporation Tax rate does not amount to full compensation for earlier payment.
The introduction of quarterly payments was not a carefully constructed and well-motivated reform of the corporation tax system by the Government, but pure firefighting. It is the latest stage in a saga of incompetence that began in July 1997, in the Labour Government's first Budget, when they abolished the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds. That measure meant that the Government had to abolish foreign income dividends, leading to a huge protest by British multinationals, which had surplus advance corporation tax problems that foreign income dividends had been helping to alleviate.
The Government were in chaos and did not know what to do. The Paymaster General proposed a range of hopeless solutions. In the end, the Government decided to abolish advance corporation tax altogether. However, that created a cash-flow cost to the Exchequer, so the Government proposed the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments. As a by-product, the new system also raised a huge chunk of extra revenue for the Government for which British industry is paying the price.
We now have a system that not only costs industry an extra £2 billion, but creates difficult and burdensome compliance problems. The quarterly payments are based on a company's current year profits, with the first payment being made halfway through that year. In other words, companies will have to estimate their profits for the year and then calculate their taxable profits and pay the first quarterly instalments after only six months of the year.
The Government claim that all the 20,000 so-called large companies affected by the regulations have sophisticated budgeting and forecasting systems in place. That may well be true of the top 1,000 companies, or even of the top 2,000 or 3,000 companies, but not of the 17,000, 18,000 or 19,000 next largest companies in Britain. Even if all those companies had sophisticated forecasting and budgeting systems, no company can forecast the state of the economy, changes in the weather, in taste or in fashion, or a change in a competitor's product or service. All those changes have an impact on sales and profits. No company can forecast with certainty a change in the price of a raw material, or the exchange rate or interest rates. How can an insurance company forecast a major national disaster, or a large accident, in the final quarter of its accounting period? Yet the Government expect companies to do so and to calculate their tax bills, down to the last pound, on the basis of those forecasts.
For many companies, there is an additional problem in that the majority of their profits are determined in just two or three months of the year. That is true of seasonal companies in, for example, tourism, toy manufacture, jewellery retailing and agriculture. For such companies, a few months are critical and it is usual for them to have a year-end just after the important months so that shareholders may have the results from those months as soon as possible.
The majority of profits for those companies are therefore earned at the end of the accounting period. However, the regulations mean that they are expected to estimate the profits, and pay tax on them, in the first half of the accounting period. Not only is it difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the figures with any accuracy but the companies are also required to pay tax on profits that have not yet been earned. For many companies, that will create real difficulties. One major seasonal company has said:
We will need to borrow funds to pay 50 per cent. of our annual tax liability in advance, which will result in punitive interest rates.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that significant companies that trade on the stock market must declare their position on a quarterly basis to buoy up their share prices? I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on the Opposition Front Bench: is it not true that, on 23 June, he tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill asking for special treatment for the retail industry without having disclosed his directorship of Asda?

Mr. Gibb: When companies declare results to the stock exchange, they do so in retrospect. They do not have to forecast their profits a year or six months in advance. Supermarkets do not suffer from seasonal variations.
The Government claim that quarterly payments work in other jurisdictions, particularly Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United States. In all those countries, except Australia and the United States, instalments are based wholly or mainly on the previous year's taxable profits rather than on those of the current year, as the regulations require. In Australia and the United States, the systems allow some alternative methods to mitigate the difficulties faced by seasonal companies. No such help is provided in the regulations, despite promises by the former Paymaster General on Second Reading of the Finance Act 1998 and during its Committee stage that he would carefully consider such matters and return to them.
What, according to the regulations, is the consequence for a company that wrongly estimates its tax charge and its quarterly instalments? The first penalty if the company understates its instalment will be an interest charge 2 per cent. above base rates. Overpayment will be compensated for by rates of one quarter of 1 per cent. below base. Despite the reduced margin differential, those are punitive rates for companies to suffer simply for failing to calculate accurately a sum that it is impossible to calculate accurately.
Penalties are set out in paragraph 13. The original consultation document said that penalties would be chargeable only if a company "deliberately and flagrantly" failed to make an instalment of sufficient size. That sounded fair enough. The document also said that that would result in penalties being paid in no more than a handful of instances each year.
I do not know whether the Treasury received representations that the penalty regime was not harsh enough, but the regulations now say that a penalty will be imposed on a company that "deliberately or recklessly" fails to pay the right amount. It need not be a deliberate miscalculation; it need only be reckless.
How do we define "reckless"? How much forecasting effort are companies expected to engage in to avoid the charge of being reckless? The penalties are not small—they amount to up to 200 per cent. of the amount of interest charged on the underpayment. It would be helpful of the Paymaster General to explain why the wording changed between the consultation document and the regulation. What does she mean by "reckless"?
The Government seek to give the impression that they are business friendly, but we are debating a statutory instrument that will cost business dear. It will result in higher tax bills for the next four years, to the tune of £8.9 billion. Therefore, this is a hugely important issue, which should not be sneaked through as secondary legislation in a one-and-a-half hour debate—a debate that, incidentally, would not have been held but for the fact that the Opposition prayed against the regulations.
The regulations are yet another example of where the image and posture of the Government differ from the reality. They pretend to be business friendly while loading on to Britain's top 20,000 companies billions of pounds of extra taxation. Do not take our word for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Adair Turner, the Director General of the CBI, said recently:
There is a concern about the accumulation of extra costs which have been imposed on business of which the biggest was actually the Corporation Tax changes which were very carefully"—
portrayed—
as a reduction in tax rates, but were actually a tax increase".
Those are not our words, but those of the CBI.
The Government portray themselves as a Government of better regulation, while piling on mountains of complex regulations. They pretend to be concerned about jobs, while presiding over measures such as these regulations, which will damage the job prospects of hundreds of thousands of employees. They posture about investment, while taking from industry £40 billion that would otherwise have been used for investment. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said recently:
The net increase in taxation of company profits sits uneasily alongside the desire to raise business investment.
The regulations amount to no more than yet another of the Government's stealth taxes. They are anti-business, anti-investment and anti-jobs and I urge the House to reject them.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I found the regulations difficult to follow. I realise that effective drafting invariably produces impenetrable prose. There have to be complicated references to other legislation and draftsmen have to cater for every eventuality that their ingenuity can envisage. I tried to understand paragraph 3—the crucial regulation—which defines the large companies that will be affected. I could not make sense of it. If you read it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find several sub-paragraphs stating what a large company is not, but none stating what it is. I turned hopefully to the explanatory note, which clearly states and I quote in full:
Regulation 3 defines a 'large company' for the purposes of the Regulations.
That is it—not a hint as to how big a company has to be to qualify as such under the regulations.
It would have been useful if, accompanying the regulations, there was an explanatory note that really explained that, not merely for hon. Members but for interested parties outside—not least the managers of the companies affected. Perhaps it would be even better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, if matters of such moment were included in primary legislation, so that they could be fully debated and amended.
I hope that the Paymaster General will tell us, as her personal contribution to open government, that she will ensure that, in future, subordinate legislation from the Treasury will always come with reasonably full explanations for the layman.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said convincingly from the Opposition Front Bench, the Government have stumbled into these changes. They started by abolishing tax credits for pension funds and others, found that they created anomalies and a cash flow difficulty for themselves and had to go further, hence the regulations. No one would mind the stumbling too much, if only the outcome were reasonable and fair. It is not. Instead of the potential cash flow reduction for the Government, they have contrived a hefty cash windfall for themselves for the next four years because payment of corporation tax by large companies will be brought forward. That will be handy for the Chancellor, and the Exchequer will get a substantial bonus, peaking at £3 billion in 2001–02, which may well be election year.
The Government could have organised a neutral system, but they did not. Despite the reduction in the nominal rates of corporation tax, for the next three years they will be collecting more. That additional cash flow, which the Government find so useful and which creates confidence in their accounts, is exactly matched by a reduced cash flow in the large companies from which it is taken. Their finances are weakened, with an obvious consequent reduction in their ability to invest and create jobs. With these regulations, the Government are hurting the large businesses that they claim to support and encourage. They are raising the burdens on them stealthily when profit margins are likely to be under pressure from subdued world trade.
Moreover, the Government seem to have made their arrangements far more complicated and uncertain than they needed to. Companies will have to estimate their profits for the whole year and pay the appropriate fraction quarterly. That will make error inevitable and create unwelcome opportunities for honest companies whose forecasts prove unreliable to be accused of bad faith by the Revenue. It would surely save much time, trouble and misunderstanding if we adopted the procedures used for individual taxpayers and based forward payments on the previous year. There would be no argument and no extra work; it would be eminently straightforward. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government chose a more difficult and complicated method when a simple one was readily available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made an important point about the interest rate at which overpayments and underpayments are charged. In all good faith, forecasts are often bound to be overestimated and underestimated. However, as I understand it, the Treasury will give a lower rate of interest on overpayments made in good faith by large

companies than it will charge on underpayments made in equally good faith. I realise that that is merely a continuation of current practice, but that can perhaps be justified under present arrangements because payments are made in arrears; companies should get it right each time. It is unfair and unreasonable to make the distinction under the estimate-based system that the regulations introduce. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are prepared to reconsider.
The regulations serve as a tax increase on large companies. The Government would gain more trust and respect if they admitted as much instead of posing as their friend anxious only to reduce the burdens with a cut in the rate of corporation tax. I hope that the Minister will also address that point.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I speak neither as a tax expert nor as one with huge experience in private companies, but the matter is of concern to my constituents because, behind what look like technical regulations, lie several issues about the Government's approach to the tax regime and welfare state changes that have been constantly raised by the public. That was recognised by Opposition Members because they spoke not only about technical issues, but about the factors behind them and some of their consequences.
A consequence repeatedly raised by the Opposition and by my constituents is the impact of the changes on the income of pensioners, particularly those who are partly reliant on investment income. It is important to recognise that, to such people, the prospect of losing some of that income as a result of the changes is a substantial concern. The loss for the average person will be about £75 pounds a year, but that must be offset against the many other changes that the Government have made that will increase pensioners' individual incomes by more than that sum. In addition, whatever changes are made to tax regimes, pensioners, including the ones in my constituency who have investment income, will be far better off if there is a healthy economy, created in part by the sort of measures included in the regulations.

Mr. Bercow: What is the ethical basis on which the Government propose to charge more interest on underpayment than they propose to pay in cases of overpayment?

Ms Keeble: I shall come to that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). However, first, I shall finish my remarks on the impact that the regulations will have on pensioners' investment income. I am sure that Opposition Members recognise that, as a result of their repeatedly raising and debating the issue, considerable concern has been aroused within the pensioner community and Members' postbags now contain quite a lot of correspondence on the subject. Having considered the facts of the matter and the long-term interest in having a sound economy that will ultimately be of far greater benefit to pensioners, I have no difficulty in justifying the proposed regulations.

Sir Robert Smith: I cannot quite understand how the hon. Lady


envisages the creation of a sound economy being assisted by taking out of the cash flow of industry several billion pounds that could be invested.

Ms Keeble: The regulations are not the only measure that the Government are taking to build a sound economy; they are one set of proposals, which affect companies in one particular way but, when talking about a sound economy, we have to consider the full range of Government actions. Those measures will build a sounder economy and so benefit pensioners.
If one wanted to look at one of the most direct measures of confidence in the economy, where one might expect to see any shaking of confidence resulting from the changes, one might look at the stock exchange. That is currently at record levels, so if companies have felt any qualms and investors' confidence in companies has been shaken, that has not yet shown up.
The Opposition have made much of the assertion that the proposed regulations would be profoundly damaging to companies and long-term investment. In fact, the regulations form part of a range of proposals to encourage investment. I am no expert, but I ask Opposition Members to consider the impact of the Conservative Government's decision to abolish the 100 per cent. tax relief on capital allowance, and to change the arrangement for the writing down of assets from 25 to 4 per cent. Those measures had two effects: first, to increase the tax base and secondly, to discourage investment and encourage other uses to be made of the money.
Much has been made of the reasons why the Government have decided to make changes, rather than leave matters as they were. There are two main reasons: first, to encourage investment and secondly, to deal with anomalies in the existing structure of corporation tax, especially some of the pressures on British companies that have substantial interests abroad.
The Opposition have also made much of the arrangements for differential interest rates on penalties paid. In looking at those issues, the Government responded substantially to representations made during the consultation process.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned advice provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the fact that it appeared that we would have to deal with a constitutional issue. I have great respect for PricewaterhouseCoopers and for the advice that it gives. However, the company comprises management consultants and accountants who are not constitutional experts, and I believe that they have made a mistake in this case.
The Opposition's concerns and the proposals that they wish to discuss do not include the detailed workings of the measure or the constitutional niceties of its introduction in the House. I am sure that, if the Government had got it wrong, points of order would have been taken and a different procedure would have been followed. In all discussions so far about these issues, it has been apparent that the Opposition are using this legislation and these regulations to pursue a different agenda: attacking the Government's economic record.

Mr. Bercow: I suspect that the hon. Lady probably knows that her explanation of differential interest

payments is nonsense on stilts. In light of her comments about listening to consultation, will she explain why the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are uniformly hostile to the proposals in their present form?

Ms Keeble: That might be so. During the consultation process, particular points were made about the difficulties that companies would face, some of which were taken into account in the final arrangements. I do not claim to be able to do things that I cannot and I made it clear at the outset that I am not a tax expert or an expert in company law. The Whip has not told me what to say: I have had long and genuine experience in this area and received many constituency letters about the issue. Many of my constituents have investment income and have shifted their affiliations away from the Conservative party. I am sure that the Opposition know the income levels and particular political interests of that community. I am extremely interested in ensuring that I can respond fully to my constituents' arguments.
Opposition Members demonstrated clearly that they are using the measure to attack the Government's economic and welfare proposals, and their implications for pensioners.

Mr. Bercow: That is nonsense.

Ms Keeble: It is not.
I support the proposals before us tonight. They are part of the Government's wide programme to build a sound economy, promote public confidence, encourage investment and strengthen industry. We want to ensure that those who invest in our economy—particularly those who invest long term for their pensions—can have real confidence in their actions and a secure future. I hope that the Opposition motion will be defeated tonight.

Mr. Brian Cotter: I am glad that the regulations have come before the House tonight, because that gives us another opportunity to debate what amounts to a major change in the country's tax regime and denies the Government the chance to slip the change through quietly.
The taste that the Government have developed for secondary legislation should be discouraged. The Liberal Democrats will oppose the regulations, not because we oppose the principle of advance payments—we have conceded that the previous system needed reform—but because we harbour significant doubts about the manner of their introduction.
The Chancellor has trumpeted long and loud in his Budgets about his reduction of the rate of corporation tax, but we all know that the regulations will result in a considerable net gain to the Exchequer, something to which attention has been drawn tonight. The Paymaster General has recently claimed that the Treasury has estimated that the long-term effect of the changes will be a net reduction in companies' liabilities. If the Chancellor is not concerned about that and if he does not intend to hit businesses, why are the regulations framed so that they will increase the short-term liability of businesses so dramatically?
The transition period allowed by the regulations is insufficiently generous if the Government's primary intention is indeed to move towards a fairer tax regime.
The transition arrangements seem concerned only with the changes to companies' cash-flow arrangements. However, it seems likely that the regulations will require an extremely substantial change in accounting procedure in affected companies. To cope with the new system of estimation, it would surely be wise to give a far longer time to adjust than the brief period allowed by the regulations.
The Government seem instead to have arranged the regulations to maximise their incidental increase in revenue from the transition. If the Chancellor wants to increase his net gain from companies, does he not owe it to them to be open and honest about that? The regulations are central to the Chancellor's public sleight of hand, which makes him appear to be giving while secretly gathering.
I am further concerned that some of the undertakings given in a debate last April by the previous Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), do not appear to have been given any house room in the regulations. In the face of an amendment concerned with companies whose profits were subject to seasonal fluctuation, he undertook carefully to consider the matter.
The regulations are complex and thorough on the punitive arrangements put in place for non-compliance and error, but do not have a crumb of comfort for those companies whose cash flow could be severely compromised by the new arrangements. Is the House to conclude that the Paymaster General thought carefully, as promised, about the unfortunate position of those companies, but then decided to do nothing about them?
I do not support the regulations. The Government's rhetoric and practice do not add up. If I may paraphrase a well-respected authority, that which we call a tax rise by any other name would sting as hard, and that would be the effect of the regulations.

Mr. John Townend: Unlike most Labour Members, who have never run even a small corner shop, I have had 35 years' experience of running medium businesses, so I understand the problems of businesses and business men, and I have a slight knowledge of accountancy. I do not have to declare an interest tonight because, regrettably, my companies make less than £1.5 million.
I approach the regulations by asking whether the proposed changes in the payment of corporation tax are aimed at benefiting industry or the Inland Revenue. When we hear the Government continually trumpeting that Labour is the new party of business, there should be only one answer—the changes should benefit industry. However, as in so many cases, Labour says one thing and does the exact opposite. The proposals will result in industry having its cash flow reduced. As my colleagues have said, beginning in 1999–2000, that reduction will be a modest £100 million. The next year, the figure rises to £1.6 billion, then it is £2 billion, then £3 billion and then £2.3 billion. Only after that does the figure start to turn positive. The Inland Revenue will benefit for five years, by more than £8 billion, out of industry's cash flow. That will have to be paid for with jobs and it will affect investment.

Mr. Geraint Davies: He has dropped his papers.

Mr. Townend: Indeed, I seem to have lost my papers.
The Government's answer is that they have reduced corporation tax, but they have reduced it in those years by only £2.8 billion. That leaves £5.2 billion, which the taxpayer has been left to pay, but the proposals really worry me in respect of the administration. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) said, there will be a considerable increase in the burden on industry. There is a fundamental flaw in the proposals: as has been mentioned, tax will not be assessed on the previous year's profits, as in the past, which made for certainty for industry. Tax will be based on a guesstimate for a year, and that guesstimate will have to be made when only six months of that year have passed.
I suggest to the Minister that, considering what has happened over the past 18 months and considering the enormous, sudden changes in the world economy—the crises in Asia and Brazil, the debt default in Russia and the speed at which currency and interest rates change—it is difficult to estimate profits. With the best will in the world, industry can get it wrong—without trying to defraud the tax person. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said, when we consider what will happen, we realise how appalling the proposals are.
First, industry is faced with paying interest, but there is no justice in that, because the interest that has to be paid if someone underestimates is more than that which has to be paid if someone overestimates. How can anyone justify that? It is no good saying—

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Townend: In a moment.
It is no good saying, "That was the practice before," because before, we were dealing with the previous year's profits so we knew what we were doing. If the hon. Gentleman can justify that, I will be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Davies: Did the hon. Gentleman work in any business that did not project trading and profitability on a monthly basis for the year ahead? If he did not, he could not have worked for any serious company. Are not differential interest rates obviously rational because, otherwise, there would be an incentive to industry to underpay? What is more, because of what the previous Government did, are not we talking only about the levels, not the principle? This is hogwash.

Mr. Townend: Certainly not. Our Government never produced legislation in which taxation was based on estimates. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman did before he was elected to the House, but he clearly—

Mr. Davies: I ran a number of companies, which I started myself—they all had monthly projections of profit and sales—after a very successful career in multinational companies. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in wine and spirits, which he shows by the way that he drops his papers.

Mr. Townend: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not even had any dinner tonight. Clearly, we have the most perfect business man in the world in the House—he makes projections that are always 100 per cent. right.


Of course all the businesses with which I have been involved have had budgets, but how often—at the end of the year, the month or the quarter—did we go to our various managers to ask why a budget was 15 per cent. higher than forecast or why sales were 10 per cent. lower than forecast? If the hon. Gentleman is able to budget and always get it right, he is much cleverer than I am.
The regulations are vague about the level of penalties. I have looked through them carefully, but have found no mention of the level of penalties. That will create uncertainty, which is most unfair to businesses. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, some firms are subject to seasonal variations. If they get their budgets wrong for that reason and a tax inspector does not accept the extent of those seasonal variations, they will have to pay penalties.
When I read the regulations, I was taken back to the time when I was studying to be a chartered accountant. As on so many occasions, Treasury Ministers have produced regulations that demonstrate that they have become the lackeys of the Inland Revenue.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? I am sure that he has read the regulations, so he will have seen that regulation 13, entitled "Penalty for unpaid tax", says:
penalty not exceeding twice the amount of interest charged".
I think that he will find that that gives the answer that he seeks.

Mr. Townend: It depends on the interest charged. We do not yet know what that will be, do we?
Will the Government think seriously again about two matters? First, let us have some morality in the regulations. Let us say, at this late stage, that the interest charged on money paid in excess will be the same as interest charged on money underpaid. Secondly, will the Government look again at the basis of assessment? Will they listen to all their friends in industry—they are always telling us how the CBI is a great supporter of new Labour, so why not listen to the CBI? It says that the first three quarters of the financial year could be based on the previous year, and the fourth quarter, paid in the 16th month, could be a catch-up quarter. The Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce say that payment should be based on the previous year.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: So they do not even agree among themselves.

Mr. Townend: Not at all. The CBI maintains that, under its proposals, there would be no loss of revenue to the Government.
The regulations convince me that this is a Government who, when the chips are down, believe in high taxation and regulation, and that all the talk about being the party of business is a load of old codswallop.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to make just one brief point and then ask the Minister four questions.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that she would support the regulations. I greatly appreciate the point that she made about the taxation of pensions. I find it difficult to understand, particularly coming from a Labour Government whom I often admire for the good things that they do. By removing the right of pensioners to reclaim the tax on dividends, we have achieved a situation in which a pensioner with an annual income of £100,000 a year is now treated in exactly the same way as a pensioner with dividends of £500 a year. In the past, someone who did not pay income tax was entitled to reclaim the tax, but he or she no longer has that opportunity. A mistake was made in principle and I hope that the Minister will listen to the hon. Lady.
Will the Minister look at the answer that she gave in Hansard on 22 February at column 83, when she was asked about the regulations? She was asked whether she would explain what they were all about and what impact they would have. The point that I want to make, although I would not made it to the Minister, who is an honourable person, is that there is a terrible danger, when giving answers, in not telling the whole truth. The danger to Governments of both parties is that, if they do not tell the whole truth, they end up with the public not believing a word that they say.
The Minister was asked about the regulations. I throw in the point that she did not write the answer, but this is what it said:
This measure was part of a package of measures introduced in the 1998 Budget which included the abolition of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT)"—
is that not good?—
and a 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax from April 1999"—
is that not wonderful?
After a four year transition period, the effect for these companies of introducing quarterly payments, abolishing ACT and the 1 per cent. rate cut is likely on average to be a reduction in liability."—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 83.]
The regulations were going to be great news. They were going to mean the scrapping of the appalling ACT, whatever it was, the cutting of corporation tax—hoorayand—and the average company paying less.
All that is true, but the Minister's answer does not refer to the fact that, in the interim four years, there will be a massive rise in taxation. It would be much better if Governments of all parties, as I say, told the whole story. If a change in the arrangements will mean a big rise in tax and better times later on, why not explain that—that there will be a big rise in tax in the meantime?
I ask four brief questions. The first is simply: why are we making a change at all? Why are the Government introducing quarterly payments? My understanding is that they are being introduced because the Government abolished advance corporation tax following problems that were created by their decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds in the 1997 Budget. A catalogue of consequences has arisen from what appeared to many people to be the smash-and-grab raid on pension funds in the first Budget. That is the information that I have from people who claim to be experts. If that is not the reason for the change, what is the reason?
Secondly, will the Minister say clearly and precisely what she thinks the increase in revenue to the Government will be as a result of the changes? We have heard a


number of figures from Back Benchers. Some people have said that the increase will be £8.9 billion. Some have said that it will be £8 billion. Some have said that, if we take into account the reduction in corporation tax, it will be £5 billion. It would help if the Minister would say clearly—they are a very clever and talented Government—what extra revenue they think they will receive as a result of the changes in the next four years.
I hope that the Minister does not think that I have been critical. I think that she knows that I have a high regard for her, but I genuinely think that it would help us, and help to establish the proper way in which to treat Parliament, if she said what the Government believe the net extra money will be as a result of the changes.
The Minister will be aware that there is much suspicion about the Government because many tax changes have been introduced without people noticing. One of the estimates, again by clever people, who may be totally misinformed, is that, as a result of all the changes in taxation made by the Government, by the next election the average taxpayer will have paid an extra £1,500.
I do not know what would have happened if this Government had not been elected and some other Government had; the position might have been worse or much better. The crucial thing is to tell people the truth and to say what the estimate is.
My third question is simple. We are told that interest is to be paid both on overpayments and underpayments. Is the interest on overpayments and underpayments the same? If not, why is it not the same? It would be sensible if companies that paid too much tax were allowed to get interest on it or to get something back. If they are overpaying or underpaying, the interest should be the same.
I come to my final question. As the Minister must be aware, I come from a seaside town, where we tend to make all our profits within one week in summer time. Some companies make a lot of money at one time in the year and others make their money at other times of the year. That will create problems if they pay quarterly in advance.
The Minister should be aware that many companies find life a bit difficult, because things can change suddenly and dramatically. Some of the leading companies in Britain which have been very profitable suddenly find themselves in a difficult situation. Some companies that depend on changes from time to time within a year find that they will have a major problem.
Overall, I genuinely fear that we are imposing an increasing burden of taxation on industry and commerce. We should realise how lucky we are in Britain, given how well our economy is doing in general compared with the nightmare on the rest of the continent. Our unemployment levels are low, whereas the unemployment average on the continent is 10.1 per cent. Our economy is generally in a good state, compared with the appalling situation in the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries.
We should appreciate that we have secured our benefits because, by and large, we have tried to keep taxation low. I hope that, despite all their previous endeavours, the Government will try to keep it low. If they do not, we shall end up with the same nightmare that is experienced by so many European countries: high unemployment, and a great deal of human misery. That is the last thing that we want.

Mr. Richard Page: I suspect that, when the history of the Government is written and judgments are made, the standard response to all criticisms will be, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." That will certainly cover the reason for the business-damaging regulations that we are discussing. They are by no means a triumph, despite what the Minister will no doubt have us believe, and despite what a single Government Back Bencher tried to persuade us of a little earlier.
I vividly remember the Chancellor coming here immediately after the election of May 1997, and trying to convince us that he could produce a reforming Budget over a weekend. It took the Treasury—even with Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan on its staff—a week or two to convince him otherwise, and a month or so of frantic efforts by Treasury officials followed. I can imagine the scene when the Chancellor revealed his election Budget to the Cabinet.
I rather like Budgets, because they are just about the only Government announcements that are made to the House before they are made to the media. I am strongly in favour of that, and I hope that the Government will rigorously maintain the same rule in the future. I can envisage the Chancellor saying, on that morning in the Cabinet—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ahead of his time. We are not yet discussing the Budget; we are dealing with regulations. Perhaps I can draw the explanatory note to his attention, so that he can refer to it from time to time. That would be interesting.

Mr. Page: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You are right to draw such matters to my attention, but I want to explain how I believe what appeared to be a good idea at the time of the removal of advance corporation tax led to a disaster.

Madam Speaker: Order. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will now turn to the regulations.

Mr. Page: As night follows day, I shall do so. I shall leave out all that I was going to say about hitting utilities, and deal with the question of hitting pension levels.
I have no doubt that a complaint was made that the removal of ACT would hit pension levels. What was not clear to the Government at the time was that their removal would have severe cash-flow consequences, but, inevitably, the decision of July 1997 had that effect—the decision to phase out corporation tax and end tax credits for pension funds and companies when they receive dividends. The consequences of that were, as we know, disastrous.
By then, the mandarins at Great George street had persuaded the Chancellor that measures could be used to circumvent the shortfall in corporation tax. Here we come—as you requested, Madam Speaker—to the wheel that turns towards the whole matter of advance payments of corporation tax on a quarterly basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said, over the next four years, £8.9 billion will be sucked out of British businesses into the Treasury


to make up for the shortfall—and not just to make up for the shortfall, but to make £8.9 billion more. How convenient! How business friendly!

Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my few comments, I shall let him intervene afterwards.

Mr. Leslie: On that point.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunity to make his own speech in the debate. Only one Labour Member—the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—has had the courage to speak, undoubtedly after being pressurised by the Whips. Every hon. Member knows what it is like to be pressurised by the Whips to make appropriate comments.
The regulations are full of theory, but are just a tad short of practice. I look the Minister straight in the eye and ask her whether she has had any experience of running a business. I should be delighted to hear her reply. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) hit the nail on the head: unless one has run a business, the regulations will seem fine in theory, but not very good in practice.
One of the regulations' fundamental problems is that larger businesses will, each quarter, have to pay their corporation tax instalment on the basis of what they expect their profits to be over the whole year.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend will give me 30 seconds, we shall enter the intervention stakes.
As someone who—like my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire—has a modicum of business experience, I should go on bended knee to ensure that the profit that I make at the end of the year is exactly what I forecast at the beginning of the year. If only projections could be translated into profits at the end of the year, I should be a very happy bunny. But life ain't like that.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in all fairness to the Paymaster General, as long ago as 1986, she ran a very effective corporation, which drove out of business the noble Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend will understand if I am timorous in entering into such a matter of private expertise. However, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

Mr. Leslie: I have waited very patiently, but am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have a simple question, on the earlier point that he made on the revenue impact of revoking the statutory instrument. Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) a question on the same matter, but he did not give much of a reply to it. Will the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)

please enlighten me? From where does he propose finding alternative revenue for the Exchequer? Would he levy additional taxes, or cut public expenditure?

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to raise again in the debate a point that he raised earlier, but was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker?

Madam Speaker: We often hear repetitions here, particularly at this time of night.

Mr. Page: Far be it from me to try to gallop over ground that has already been covered. Nevertheless, I tell the hon. Member for Shipley that, simply because the Government have got themselves into a sticky problem, it does not follow that the solution is not to return the situation to where it was before—by giving current and future pensioners the ACTs that they require to ensure that they will have the decent pensions that the Government have so effectively denied them.
I only wish that, in any business that I had anything to do with, I knew what my profits would be at the end of the year. I ask the Paymaster General whether it would be nice if the Treasury knew that, at the end of the year, its projections were right. How often have the Treasury's various projections been within the right percentage points? That happens more rarely than commonly.
I endorse the submission of the Confederation of British Industry that
to avoid serious compliance problems for companies, the regime should allow them the option of basing the first two instalments on actual profits in the first half of their financial years, rather than having to be based on an uncertain forecast for the first year.
This is why I ask the Paymaster General whether she has any experience of running a business. The measure means that, every quarter, companies will have to run not just an ordinary profit and loss account, but an end of year account. That will be bureaucratic and will cause extra work and immense cost. Some companies will pay corporation tax not more rapidly, but before they have received the sale income on which their profit forecast depends.
What happens if a company makes more profit in the third and fourth quarters than it expected in the first and second? Unless I have read the regulations wrong, it will be hit by a charge of extra interest. That is unfair—heads the Treasury wins, tails the business loses. If too much tax has been paid over the first two quarters, the compensatory repayment by the Treasury is at approaching 5.3 per cent., which is a margin in the Treasury's favour of 2 per cent., because, if the company has not paid enough, the figure is nearly 8 per cent.
The Government say that they are business friendly, but their measure is just another burden on business. Completing the calculations every quarter will be an immense amount of work. It will not be sufficient to take just the ordinary profit and loss management accounts. Companies will have to make all sorts of calculations and make end of year accounts every three months. What happens if a company buys a machine tool? It will have to factor the depreciation into the figures. It would be simple if the company knew at the start of the year that it was going to buy the machine two thirds of the way through the year, but the company does not know whether


the machine will break or extra orders will come in. The Government are treating businesses as mechanistic operations in which there is no element of chance or difficulty.
The change will cause difficulty for companies with seasonal factors. The CBI's submissions show that some companies make their money in the last quarter. A firework manufacturer has a limited season, as does a business that grows Christmas trees or a toy seller. If we are not careful, a raft of companies will be changing their year end to just before their most profitable quarter so that they will not have to pay interest charges on profits that they have not yet earned, just to satisfy the regulations.
All that will create extra work, more computer files, more paperwork, and even broader smiles on the faces of accountants. Perhaps that is the intention. Unless profits are equally spread throughout the year, a lot of unnecessary work will be needed to ensure that the end-of-year tax liability is not distorted by overpayments during the year.
No mention has yet been made of groups with several companies in them. If they all earn more than £1.5 million a year, there is no problem, but if one company earns £1.5 million and several others earn just £100,000, the calculations will cause immense problems. The Government have not recognised the fact that, often, companies want separate trading entities to enable more sensible and viable marketing to occur.
It is all very well for the Government to present themselves as a business-friendly, reforming Administration, being better and bigger, but they do not understand business. The quicker the business community realises that, the better it will be for Britain.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): This has been an interesting debate, in which Opposition Members have raised a number of detailed questions about the regulations. In the time left to me, I will try to deal with them.
First, companies which will not have to pay by instalments—the overwhelming majority of companies—will gain £1 billion in cash flow as a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax alone. After the transitional period is through, in the year 2003–04, companies will gain £1.6 billion a year from the combined effect of the changes.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised a number of points, but I will deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). His first point was the old chestnut that secondary legislation was undemocratic and the wrong way to make regulations. Other Opposition Members called for morality in the regulations. Essentially, they believe that it is unconstitutional to modify existing tax law through regulations made under the negative resolution procedure.
There is nothing in those allegations—as Opposition Members know full well. Regulations must be laid before Parliament before they come into effect. The previous Government made extensive use of tax regulations under the negative resolution procedure. The use of regulations facilitates consultation on the fine details of schemes, such as the instalments and the shadow ACT.
I wish to refer to the consultation. On 24 April last year, the Revenue published draft instalment payment regulations to give tax practitioners, business and others

an opportunity to comment. A further draft of the regulations was made available to members of the self-assessment consultative committee last autumn. Further comments were then taken into account. Many of the points raised by Opposition Members about the changes arise from that consultation.
The first point was that instalment payments give a tax rise. No company will pay more tax as a result of the regulations—they bring forward the time at which the tax is paid. There is no effect on the amount of tax to be paid.

Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, I will not. The hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time and I wish to answer the important points made in the debate. If I have time at the end of the debate, I will be happy to give way. As Opposition Members well know, the new instalment payments result from the abolition of ACT—not through some chaos, but through the Government's policy of moving to a position where we encourage investment and take the distortions out of the tax system.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to the interest charge, which he said was penal—he can correct me if I have overstated his point—and somehow a penalty. It is not. It is to ensure that the correct use of the money is available either to the Treasury, if there has been underpayment, or as a refund to the company if there has been an overpayment to ensure that there is a proper result and no financial loss either way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the right of appeal. There is a penalty power, which will be used in cases of flagrant abuse. The Revenue will determine the penalty to be properly applied and that companies have a right of appeal to the commissioners.
In the consultation, the companies felt that the ordinary meaning of the word "reckless" was better than "flagrant", so they suggested that amendment, and it was perfectly reasonable for the Government to have accepted that.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that our regime was more penal than that of other countries, and especially the United States. That is not the case: other countries apply a regime to companies with much lower profits; I will not cite them, because I know that the hon. Gentleman knows them and that, having spent a long time as an accountant, he knows the details full well.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in and, out of respect to hon. Members who made points in the debate, I really should try to deal with them.

Mr. Townend: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have not dropped my papers or lost my place, so I do not need any assistance.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I will get on to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must show respect to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the Front-Bench spokesman, by answering his points first.
Through the consultations, the Government have taken proper account of how the introduction of instalments will work, and we will continue to work closely with the companies.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a thoughtful contribution, as always. He talked about the definition of companies and what counts as a large company. The regulations make it clear that a large company is one whose profits exceed £1.5 million for a 12-month accounting period ending on or after 1 July 1999.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about interest. He asked why there should be a differential rate between overpaid and underpaid. That was a feature of the tax system under the previous Government, of which I seem to remember that he might have been a member. It represents the difference between rates on borrowing and on investment: the same arrangement as in banks and other financial institutions. There is no skulduggery; it is straightforward. The system is finely tuned, so it can respond to changes in interest rates, unlike the previous system.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Much as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interventions and little jokes, I will not give way at present.
The right hon. Member for Fareham went on to say that the interest rate regime was unfair to companies. In the consultations, we responded to companies' concerns about interest rates, and we have introduced a new regime for the instalment payments. There is a smaller spread on the charge on amounts overpaid and underpaid, and the system is more sensitive to changes in the base rate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the instalment for the current year should not be based on the previous year's payment. A good number of companies said in the consultations that they already produced profit forecasts in year and could manage the instalment based on their estimated current year corporation tax liability.
Some companies wanted a mixture. They wanted to pick and choose between current and previous year. They thought that one year it might be good to have a previous year calculation, and another year a current year calculation. We came to the conclusion that, if they can show such flexibility, they must be able to do current year calculations.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) was in danger of losing the plot of the regulations. He talked about cutting rates on the one hand but taxing via the instalment regime on the other. I am sure that he has noticed the following point, but I shall point it out to him anyway. Small and medium companies, as I have already said, gained £1 billion in cash flow from the abolition of ACT. Only the 20,000 largest companies will pay by instalments.
Hon. Members asked a series of questions about the results of the consultation. Companies with profits between £300,000 and £1.5 million were removed from the instalment regime as a result of the consultation. Following discussions with business, penalty and information powers will focus more clearly on cases of

flagrant or, as business prefers to say, reckless abuse, and the anti-avoidance provisions were amended to help companies involved in a legitimate restructuring rather than a scheme designed to avoid the instalment regime.

Mr. Gibb: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I want to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He made some generous comments and I hope that he will not be too disappointed with the replies. I have already covered his first point about the £1.6 billion a year gain as a result of the combined effects of the changes when the transition period is over. I also dealt with his second point when I said that no more tax will be paid, it is a question of when it is paid.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the clarity of the figures and whether the forecasts had revealed the true intent. In the March 1998 Budget press release, and in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—I am happy to send him copies of those—£5.8 billion for 1998–99 to 2002–03 is shown as the cash flow figure for that item. It was not a secret, because it was there in the papers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that all the information has been there, even though he does not agree with it. I hope that he will also accept that small and medium companies, especially those in seaside towns to which he was perhaps referring, will not be affected.
The hon. Gentleman's final point, and one that many other hon. Members made, was about companies whose trade is seasonal. Following discussions with companies, we believe that they can cope with the forecast and be able to pay their instalments. However, if a company feels that its forecast has turned out to be wrong and its instalments are too high, it can apply to the Revenue for some of the money back if it proves that its cash flow has changed and it will not reach the profit levels that it originally forecast.

Mr. Page: rose—

Mr. Bercow: Will the Paymaster General give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way. On the question of companies that have excessive seasonal problems, I can tell the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East that we will keep an eye on the issue. We are not convinced that there will be a problem, but we will not ignore it.

Mr. Gibb: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak at the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was right to point out the need to address questions of poor growth and investment and the productivity gap in the economy that the Government inherited from the previous Government. We set about tackling those problems by focusing on how to create long-term stability. The corporation tax changes, the tax credit reform and the abolition of ACT are part of that comprehensive agenda. We have a simplified corporation tax system, which supports and encourages companies. We have an instalment method that will benefit companies, not cause problems for them.
The House has heard the error of the Opposition's ways and will have realised that they did not read the regulations as carefully as they should have. The House should feel reassured, and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the regulations.

Mr. Gibb: That was an appalling wind-up speech. The Paymaster General claims to have listened to the businesses that made representations during the consultation process, so why has she not listened to the representations of companies faced with seasonal profits? Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), intimated that he would listen and would return with changes to the regulations to assist the companies that have serious problems in that they generate the majority of their profits in just two or three months a year.
The hon. Lady has done nothing to accommodate those real concerns, and she has said nothing about the consultation and the representations made. Will she use the remaining three minutes of the debate to tell us why she did not listen?

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend, who is developing a powerful case, agree that the proposed treatment of company overpayments amounts in practice to legalised theft? The very least that the hon. Lady should do is to tell us whether she and her colleagues have satisfied themselves that the regulations are consistent with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are dealing not with the current situation, in which companies make calculations nine months after the year-end so that they can be made with great accuracy, but with a new system that will involve companies having to estimate six months or a year in advance what their profits will be, and in particular what their taxable profits will be. Companies, particularly those with seasonal variations, that make the majority of their profits in just two or three months each year—generally towards the end of an accounting period—find it difficult to make those estimates. The interest payments are also punitive.
During the final two minutes of the debate, will the Paymaster General tell us why she has ignored representations from all the companies in tourism, jewellery retailing and toy manufacture that have real concerns about the proposals?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 289.

Division No. 80]
[10.32 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Norman
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bercow, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Blunt, Crispin
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William





Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Madel, Sir David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples, John


Cotter, Brian
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moore, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Feam, Ronnie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight, Howard
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gill, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Townend, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyler, Paul


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wilkinson, John


Lansley, Andrew
Willetts, David


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Best, Harold


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Alexander, Douglas
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barnes, Harry
Buck, Ms Karen


Barron, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Begg, Miss Anne
Caravan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Casale, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Caton, Martin






Cawsey, Ian
Heppell, John


Chaytor, David
Hesford, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clelland, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cohen, Harry
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, Iain
Illsley, Eric


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corston, Ms Jean



Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Crausby, David
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Leslie, Christopher


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Levitt, Tom


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dowd, Jim
Lock, David


Drew, David
Love, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCabe, Steve


Etherington, Bill
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Flint, Caroline
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Follett, Barbara
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McNulty, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
MacShane, Denis


Galloway, George
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Goggins, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morley, Elliot





Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mountford, Kali



Mudie, George
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Hara, Eddie
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Olner, Bill
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stevenson, George


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pendry, Tom
Stinchcombe, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Stringer, Graham


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pollard, Kerry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Timms, Stephen


Prosser, Gwyn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quinn, Lawrie
Truswell, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vis, Dr Rudi


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Ms Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Roy, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wills, Michael


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, James


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Graham Allen and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am, as the record will show, not one of those who has criticised the Home Secretary for taking what I am sure was a much-needed break with his wife over the weekend. However, the record will show that, at 12.30 on Thursday afternoon, when the Home Secretary was in Eltham delivering soundbites and should have been here making a statement, I queried with Madam Speaker the removal from the Vote Office of the appendices to the Lawrence report. Madam Speaker kindly investigated the matter and a statement was, as the House knows, made on Friday morning. The House and the Vote Office were given to understand that the expurgated version of the appendices would be made available in the Vote Office today. I have inquired of the


Vote Office and the document is still not available. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you inform the House whether Madam Speaker has been given any idea by the Home Office as to when the appendices will be available; and, if not, whether the Home Secretary has asked to make a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is a matter not for the occupant of the Chair, but for the Government. I have no doubt that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am rather mystified by that point of order because, about 15 minutes ago, I was told quite explicitly by the Vote Office that the appendices would be available tomorrow, and I should have thought that the same information would have been given to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I propose that we take motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 together.

Hon. Members: Object.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft National Health Service Estate Management and Health Building Agency Trading Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation):—
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 39) (HC 213), which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 29.

Division No. 81]
[10.47 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Alexander, Douglas
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Boateng, Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Borrow, David


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Caborn, Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis





Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Casale, Roger
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caton, Martin
Hope, Phil


Cawsey, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chaytor, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr Kim


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Jenkins, Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Coffey, Ms Ann



Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Corbett, Robin



Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leslie, Christopher


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Levitt, Tom


Dawson, Hilton
Linton, Martin


Dean, Mrs Janet
Livingstone, Ken


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dismore, Andrew
Lock, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Love, Andrew


Doran, Frank
McAllion, John


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Drew, David
McCabe, Steve


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ennis, Jeff
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foulkes, George
McWalter, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gardiner, Barry
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Goggins, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hesford, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hill, Keith
Naysmith, Dr Doug






O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stevenson, George


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Truswell, Paul


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rogers, Allan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Roy, Frank
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Wills, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster (C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Mike Hall.


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





NOES


Allan, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Baker, Norman
Grieve, Dominic


Ballard, Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Moore, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Clappison, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Fabricant, Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Fallon, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Wilkinson, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Bercow and Mr. David Ruffley.


Gale, Roger



Gill, Christopher

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 5 and 6 related to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

COURT OF AUDITORS REPORT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation):—
That this House takes note of European Community Documents OJ No. C349, European Court of Auditors Annual Report on the financial year 1997, Nos. 14031/98, Draft Council Regulation establishing a European Fraud Investigation Office, and 10786/98, Special Report No. 9/98 of the European Court of Auditors concerning the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in the field of VAT on intra-Community trade; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote and support measures to improve financial management and fight fraud against the EU Budget.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 15.

Division No. 82]
[10.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allan, Richard
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Best, Harold
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cotter, Brian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dalyell, Tarn


Caborn, Richard
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Darvill, Keith


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)






Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dawson, Hilton
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Laxton, Bob


Dismore, Andrew
Leslie, Christopher


Donohoe, Brian H
Levitt, Tom


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lock, David


Ennis, Jeff
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Fearn, Ronnie
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCabe, Steve


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McDonnell, John


Follett, Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Don (Bath)
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McNulty, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Goggins, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Moffatt, Laura


Harris, Dr Evan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moore, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morley, Elliot


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mountford, Kali


Hesford, Stephen
Mudie, George


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Hara, Eddie


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pendry, Tom


Hurst, Alan
Perham, Ms Linda


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kidney, David
Rendel, David


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton s)






Stuart, Ms Gisela


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Roy, Frank
Temple—Morris, Peter


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salter, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wicks Malcolm


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Mike Hall.


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Stringer, Graham



NOES


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Wilkinson, John


Gale, Roger



Gill, Christopher
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Bercow and Mr. David Ruffley.


Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Grieve, Dominic

Question accordingly agreed to.

Penn School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am delighted, even at this late hour, to have an opportunity to air the concerns of parents, pupils, governors and staff about the future of Penn school, which is based in my constituency.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who are supporting me here tonight. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) have sent their apologies, but have also been of great support to me. I wish to mention in particular the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) who, together with other Labour Members, has supported the future of Penn school.
I am delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the Front Bench and I hope that, in replying to the debate, he will be able to give heart and a definite future to Penn school. Some 18 hon. Members have an interest in the school's future, and that interest extends well beyond this place. Many people will have stayed up tonight to hear what the Minister has to say to us.
Penn school, a designated regional resource for deaf and hearing-impaired children—is under threat. For 76 years, it has met the special educational needs of deaf and hearing-impaired children. Since 1990, its role has evolved to include a unit for language-impaired children. Throughout its history, children have come to Penn from as far afield as the counties of Avon to the west and Cambridgeshire to the east. No fewer than 11 London boroughs place children at the school.
In 1990, Camden local education authority bid, and took responsibility for, the school. However, the LEA now proposes ceasing to maintain it from August 1999. I support the governors and others in their hope of retaining the school as an expanded regional resource for secondary-age children with communication problems who cannot wholly be successfully managed or treated in mainstream schools.
In their own words, the governors and others aspire to continue
to nurture and care for children with communication difficulties, educate them to the highest limit of their individual abilities and prepare them to maximise their achievements in adult life".
As well as providing facilities for secondary-aged pupils, the governors and staff wish, depending on demand, to introduce a primary entry class for pupils aged nine to 11.
As the Minister will know, the governors have made a formal application to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to continue to operate Penn school as a non-maintained special school. I press the Minister on the matter and hope that he will respond positively to that proposal. However, there are some concerns about how the Department will interpret the school's degree of specialism. That has been defined as a "unique combination" and includes the school's provision of facilities for deaf or hearing-impaired and language-impaired children, who also have other, sometimes severe, difficulties.
The school offers teaching by qualified teachers of the deaf and a high-level signing system. In addition, there are boarding facilities. The school provides a small, homely environment that secures the development of a range of secondary-age pupils with disabilities. It has a successful history of providing a period of restorative care and teaching that enables severely disadvantaged pupils to return to mainstream schools after a spell at Penn. It is worth mentioning, although I am sure that the Minister will have noticed it, that the school received a very good Ofsted report in June 1998.
The governors have succeeded in attracting funding to back their attempt to continue the school's work. I hope that their application will be given every consideration to enable that valuable resource to continue to help young people. I have been to the school on several occasions and met pupils, parents, governors and staff. It is obvious that the standard of education in the school is excellent and that the children respond extremely well.
I urge the Minister to make a decision as soon as possible because, clearly, while there is uncertainty about the school's future, it is difficult for LEAs to come to decisions about whether to place a pupil at the school. The governors also face the problem of retaining the well-trained and highly motivated teachers.
Camden's case for closure depends partly on the argument about the viability of the school, but it could be argued that its policy of stopping residential admissions from May 1997—a decision that I appreciate has been reversed—in itself damaged the school's viability. That has made it more difficult to recruit new pupils. However, following market research, the governors and teaching staff believe that at least seven LEAs are potential new customers for the school.
The school has the capability to provide places for 60 pupils—either for all their senior years, or for some—to enter the school for a relatively short period before they re-enter mainstream education. In addition, the school could take part in the programme of greater inclusion for pupils with special educational needs, as set out in the Department's Green Paper "Excellence for all Children". I do not mean to quote the Minister's words back at him, but, as I am sure that he knows, the Green Paper states:
We recognise the continuing need for special schools to provide—in some cases temporarily—for a very small proportion of pupils whose needs cannot be fully met within the mainstream sector.
Penn school fulfils all the criteria to operate as a centre of regional excellence. The Green Paper acknowledged that there should be a "continuum of provision" across the country, and I believe that Penn school has a role to play within that provision.
The preferred option set out in the Green Paper is to encourage voluntary contribution between local education authorities and other providers, including non-maintained special schools. One of the core functions is defined as the planning of places for low-incidence disabilities. That includes pupils with hearing impairments and autism—the type of pupils who attend Penn school.
Another difficulty faced by the governors and the team putting together the bid is Camden's recent decision on the valuation of the site. The estimated value of the site and the buildings, for continued educational use, is £1.6 million. However, in mid-February, Camden stated that it must adopt as its basis for valuation the full market


price of the site, which would be some £2 million. The argument is that the council has a statutory duty to obtain the full market value on a best-consideration basis.
I urge the Minister to do what he can to persuade Camden to rethink its decision. The governors are prepared to give legal undertakings that, in the eventuality of the school's having to close, the London borough of Camden would be involved in any arrangement for its disposal; but I cannot emphasise too strongly that the team at Penn school see no reason why it should not have a thriving future for many years to come.
Camden's decision about the valuation is one more obstacle put in the way. There does not seem to be any reason why Camden should not accept an offer based on the valuation of the site operating as a school under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. When Camden council ratified the closure recommendation in September 1998, the education committee stated in writing:
Members urged officers to work with the governors in their aim for Penn to become a non-maintained/independent school".
That effectively set the valuation as the utilisation of an existing use. What has happened since then could be described as a U-turn. If the Minister can wield any influence with the LEA to persuade it to rethink its strategy, my constituents and I—and the constituents of many other hon. Members—will be extremely grateful.
Children at Penn have often been placed once, twice or as many as three times before coming to the school. They eventually find the right school, and start to make good progress. If the school is closed, we shall also have to think about the consequences for pupils who will then have to travel far from home.
A former pupil, Shaun Wiggins, wrote this about his personal experience of the school and the effect that it had on him:
When I started Penn School I had very bad speech problems and since I started I have improved a lot in my work. If people can keep Penn school open then more people will come and would be treated the same as other kids. Before I came to Penn School I went to a comprehensive school where I had no friends. When I came to Penn School I had friends for the first time and now I am very happy.
That is a great tribute to the work of the headmaster, Mr. Alan Jones, and his staff, and to the dedication of the school's governors, headed by Mr. John Tripp. Their greatest concern is for the welfare of the children in their care. They want the work of Penn school to continue for many years, as indeed do my hon. Friends and I.
I hope that Shaun Wiggins's eloquent plea will not be disregarded, and that other pupils with hearing or language impairment, or autism, can continue to receive the benefits of the education provided at Penn school.
I hope that, today, the Minister will give the Penn school the future that it desires. It is a centre of excellence. I have been delighted to visit the school, and to see the outcome of the education provided to its pupils. I cannot tell the Minister how dedicated the parents, the governors, the staff and the pupils are to the school's continuation.
The Minister has a golden opportunity today to set at rest the minds of deserving people and their children. I hope that he will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important topic for children with the special need of hearing impairment—in which I have great interest. I do not know an awful lot about land valuation, but I know something about teaching and—as trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—a bit about deafness.
I shall speak only briefly, simply to make the point that if children—any child in any culture—are to develop language effectively, they have to grow up in an environment that is rich in that language. That is as true for a hearing child, in any language, as it is for a deaf child growing up, who is developing sign language as his or her first language—as it is for 50,000 people in the United Kingdom.
As far as I know, the Penn school provides that type of rich cultural environment for hearing-impaired children. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to respond positively to the pleas of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this debate. Not all hon. Members will know that she spent much of her early life in my constituency, in Cringleford, which is just outside Norwich. For some reason, she decided to depart—to Cheltenham Ladies college and to Amersham and Chesham. I do not know why she left, but I know that our loss in Norwich was their gain in Chesham and Amersham. I congratulate her on the way in which she made her case.
I very much welcome the opportunity of discussing the future of Penn school, which, judging from the correspondence that I have received, is a subject close to the hearts of many hon. Members and people elsewhere, such as parents at the school and others who are interested in the education of deaf children.
I really am grateful to all those who, in the past few months, have contributed their views on the school. The Department and I have received submissions from hon. Members representing south-east Buckinghamshire—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the Chamber—and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham, for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). From the other place, I have received representations from Earl Howe and Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is a testament to the quality of the school that so many Members of the House and of the other place should have decided that they wished to make representations in the manner that they have.
We have received representations also in a petition of 1,200 names, from the National Deaf Children's Society and from a variety of local education authorities—


which I suspect are among those that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said would be keen to use the school.

Mrs. Gillan: It is quite obvious that there is tremendous support for the school, and I am glad that the Minister has catalogued the number of representations that he has received. May I also, through him, thank his officials, who I believe have visited the school several times, most recently last week? I was pleased to note that officials took such close interest in the school and in the outcome. I therefore hope that the Minister will today be giving us the response that we wish to hear.

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that remark, and shall certainly pass it on to officials in my Department. As the hon. Lady said, they have worked hard on the matter, and I join her in thanking them for their work.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend has already mentioned the written representations that other hon. Members and I have made to him. May I underline the point about the considerable uncertainty facing parents—such as Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, who have a child at the school and live in my constituency—because of continued uncertainty about the school's future? An early decision to end that uncertainty would be particularly welcome for them.

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that point and I hope that I can help my hon. Friend during the debate.
Special educational needs is an important issue for the Government. Our Green Paper in October 1997, followed by our action programme in November 1998, set out a clear plan for dealing with the issues. We are committed to taking all possible steps to improve the situation for people with special educational needs. That is the context in which I turn to the proposal from Camden local education authority to cease to maintain the school and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the clarity with which she made her case. Penn school is a special school in Penn in Buckinghamshire, but maintained by Camden LEA, for children with hearing impairments and communications difficulties. Most of the children also have other learning difficulties. As the hon. Lady said, it is an important regional facility for that group of children.
Camden LEA inherited the school when the Inner London education authority was abolished in 1990. The school serves a wide area, with children from a number of authorities. None of the children currently at the school is from Camden. The school received a good Ofsted report in June 1998, which was a commendation of all those working at the school and the service that it offers.
However, because of the consideration that I mentioned earlier, Camden LEA served notice on the Secretary of State on 6 October 1998 of its proposal to cease to maintain the school from the end of the current academic year. Later that month, the school applied for non-maintained special school status. Non-maintained special schools are run by charitable trusts on a non-profit

making basis. The governors of Penn school have already established the Rayners special education trust, with a view to running the school under the proposed new arrangements. We have received many letters of support for the continued existence of the school and my officials have kept in close contact with Camden LEA and Penn school throughout.
I am pleased to be able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered all the information available to him and has decided that he is minded to approve Camden LEA's proposal to cease to maintain the school from 31 August 1999 and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school from 1 September this year. I hope that that will allow the school to plan for its future as a non-maintained special school.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, substantial independent research has been carried out and a business plan has been developed that gives the governors of the school confidence that they will be able to develop it as they have proposed.
I said my right hon. Friend is minded to approve. Final approval will be given when the school and Camden have agreed terms and conditions for the sale of the site, which is currently being negotiated, and when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the school's sponsors have provided formal confirmation that they will provide financial security for the school for its first five years as a non-maintained special school. I understand that that is expected shortly.

Mr. John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement, which will bring great relief to many of my constituents as well as to many others. When I was the chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, I was involved in the transfer of properties from ILEA to the boroughs. They were transferred largely as trusts so that they would be maintained for the benefit of London and the whole country. It behoves the Government to ensure that that concept is taken into account in the consideration of the financial arrangements between Camden and the school. The school was designed to provide educational value and service to the whole community. Any pricing of the property should be on that basis. Under the Wednesbury principles, it would be reasonable to take that into account.

Mr. Clarke: I take that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. I was coming to that. I cannot give any detailed comfort on that, save to say that I understand the powerful and forceful points that have been made and I shall give careful consideration to the situation to see what good offices my Department can offer to try to ensure that an agreement is reached at a reasonable level.

Mrs. Gillan: On behalf of my constituents, the school, the governors, the parents and the children, may I thank the Minister for arriving so speedily at a "minded-to" decision tonight? He knows that this is a subject close to my heart, and one about which I feel strongly. To be able to send those with the greatest interest in the school home tonight with happiness in their hearts means a great deal. I unreservedly thank him for the decision. I note that there are some precursors to the final signing of the document,


but I feel sure that, as the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box tonight to make the announcement in response to this Adjournment debate, most barriers will melt away.

Mr. Clarke: If only that were true in all walks of life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Lady has just expressed, and I hope that the decision provides some of the security for which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has asked. There are matters to be sorted out, but I, too, am confident that they will be sorted out. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the definition of impairment, to the boarding facilities and to restorative care, and those issues will be addressed positively and constructively.
My Department has written today to Camden LEA and to the chair of the governors of Penn school to inform them of the decision. I am sure that they, too, would want to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard to support and maintain the facility.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will wish to know that Camden LEA has undertaken to invest the proceeds from the sale of the site specifically to improve the special educational provision for children in Camden. I believe that that is an important commitment, which will be of benefit. I appreciate what has been said from Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that everybody will agree that that is good news.
I want to conclude by wishing the school every success in the future, and by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and all her parliamentary colleagues who have argued so forcibly, constructively and patiently to ensure that the issue is resolved. The school is an important resource, and I wish the teachers, pupils and governors well in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.